Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3459-C Staff AnalysisJuly 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:(Cont.)FILE N Z -3459-C Public Trans ortation Served by bus Route No. 17, Mabelvale/Downtown through Wal-Mart site and along Baseline Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing. D. ENGINEERING TILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Public Works: E. F. The scale and detail of the submitted plan is unacceptable to evaluate plan properly. Please revise and resubmit. Entry drive from the east needs revisions. Consult with Traffic Engineer prior to Planning Commission. The drive adjacent to future building does not appear to be adequate in width. The east west private drive is named Mabelvale Plaza Drive. Provide an updated erosion control plan prior to construction. Baseline Road has volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. 1992 access road counts were 13,270 ADT. UTILITY COMMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer available for phases 1, 2 and 3 but 4 requires a main extension. Water: An acreage charge of $150.00 applies and other fees. AP&L: Easements required. Southwestern Bell: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Fire Department: Fire hydrants required, show plan. Count- Planninrx: No Comment Planning Division: No Comment ISSDE4SILEGALITECHNICALIDESIGN: Landscape: Site plan of insufficient size to review 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISIOPI ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE ND.: �-3459-C • No comment at this time since the site plan provided is not at a workable scale and too much information is absent. G. ANALYSIS• Not offered due to condition of filing. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the item be deferred and submitted in complete form. SUBDIVYOMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The Committee discussed this application at length. Mr. Daters, the project engineer of record, indicated that a larger scale more detailed plan exists but had not been provided to staff. He requested that the item not be pulled from the agenda but give him until the end of next week (July 5th) to complete the filing. The Committee pointed out that this was an unacceptable way to conduct a review but would offer Mr. Daters the opportunity. Staff pointed out that since no one has had a real review, Mr. Daters should obtain approvals from all the contact agencies or at least their comments by Friday the 5th. staff will accept the revisions and feed them into the process with an update of this agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its recommendation and the petition before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the application from Subdivision Committee to this time. He stated that on the occasion of Subdivision Committee, the application was totally deficient and the site plan was of such scale it could not be utilized for review. On that occasion, the engineer of record offered that a larger scale was available and had been viewed by most of the parties normally reviewing Plats and plans. The engineer on the project offered to resolve any questions and have all reviews completed in time for the staff's agenda write-up and this was accomplished. wood closed his remarks by saying there were only a couple of minor items dealing with landscaping that will be followed-up on the final plan but nothing that should hold-up the review and approval of the project. 3 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z --3459-C NAME: MABELVALE BUSINESS PARK LOCATION: I-30 at Baseline Road (west of Wal-Mart site) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Conservative Development White-Daters 2851 Lakewood Village Dr. 401 Victory Street N. Little Rack, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 758-7745 374-1666 AREA: 2.9 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail food and fuel PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCES RE ❑ESTED: BACKGROUND• #15 - Geyer Springs West None This tract is a part of a continuing development of a large tract that has mixed zoning, lot sizes and uses. Several buildings are complete on lots to the south. The overall plan proposed to develop a system of private and public street to serve the project. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop several small buildings on this tract with common access and parking relationships. The plan submitted offers little more than this statement indicates. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A partially cleared site lying adjacent to Baseline Road and immediately west of Wal-Mart site. The site is zoned C-2 Commercial and is abutted by C-2 and C-3 zoning on all sides. The tract is visible to I-30 and frontage road as well as Baseline Road. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: Cant. FILE NO.: Z -3459-C The Chairman then placed the issue on the floor for discussion and asked if any commissioner had a question. Commissioner Adcock asked about the several eating establishments proposed as to the orientation of the buildings. Mr. Tim Daters, representing the developer, offered comments. He stated that the Exxon, Taco Bell building and the Pancake House share a common serviceway and those two buildings rear upon each other so that the face of the buildings are east -west. The buildings do have front facades on Baseline Road. Therefore, the buildings are designed and oriented so that the rears oppose each other and the building faces are toward the several streets and internal driveways. Commissioner Adcock then questioned putting a Taco Bell in a convenience store. Mr. Daters responded by saying that this is a new development type and there a number of them in the area at this time. Typically with locations of Taco Bell or Burger King or Subway Sandwich. Commissioner Adcock then addressed the question of accidents in the area and traffic flows and asked whether or not any review had been made of that circumstance. Mr. Daters responded by saying yes they have, plus, they have worked with the City Staff and the Highway Department in traffic circulation. He also discussed the fact that the Highway Department in the near future proposes to change the frontage road to one way. Mr. Daters pointed out that this project has no direct access onto Baseline Road from these several businesses but will take their primary access from the internal street or from the primary drive that runs back to Wal-Mart. Commissioner Adcock questioned Mr. Daters as to whether or not this convenience store operation would be 24 hour. His response was that he was not sure at this time, so he could not respond. Mr. Daters went on to respond to several other questions dealing with the type of activities, the drive thru and the type of services offered by the several restaurant facilities. To answer a concern of Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Daters stated that there would be a full detail review by staff when this developer comes in for the building permit and this would of course deal with the landscaping and buffering type of requirements. The Chairman then entertained a motion to approve the application. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 2 abstentions. A lengthy discussion then followed involving several of the commissioners and staff as to the appropriate action to be taken at this point since staff had identified the application as failing for lack of 6 affirmative votes. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO_: 3459-C Commissioner Lichty added clarification on his vote and his reason for not being in the room. He stated that he wanted this application to proceed and move on in as much as he felt there was no particular problem. Jim Lawson explained for the Commission and Commissioner Lichty that the bylaws do not specifically require that he be in the room and hear all of the discussion on the case prior to casting a vote. The discussion then moved to rescinding of the previous vote or expunging the motion and action in order to reintroduce the application for a second vote. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's office, proceeded to review the bylaws of the Commission and offered direction. Her response was there was no specific bylaw instruction or direction as to how this might occur. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, said the Commission has simply dealt with this issue as it has arisen over the years. Commissioner Lichty stated that he had only inserted his commentary and voted abstaining because he was not in the room and did not have the opportunity to hear any possible objection to the application and he would appreciate someone voicing that concern if such an objection had been presented. Another lengthy discussion followed involving the Chairman, Staff and several commissioners as to the appropriate procedure to expunge the previous action. Commissioner Adcock closed out this conversation by responding to questions of others and identifying what her concerns were and basically her reason for abstaining. Her statement primarily dealt with her desire to not see this corner or this strip of Baseline developed in a way such as occurred in the area of Geyer Springs and Baseline. In response to this, Mr. Daters representing the application stated that the current city ordinances contain provisions that disallow the kinds of developments that had occurred earlier along Geyer Springs. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, inserted a statement that this was not a land use but a site plan review. A motion was then introduced by Commissioner Hawn for the Commission to expunge the previous vote on this application. Prior to a vote being taken, Jim Lawson asked that the Commission hold their vote while he and the City Attorney review the bylaws relative to procedure. In a follow-up discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was determined that expunging the record would require only a simply majority of those present. But to reconsider an item that had been finally decided by a vote, in this case, this application had been denied, then a unanimous vote of all of those present would be required in order to reconsider the item at the same meeting. 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3459-C After a brief discussion of this bylaw requirement, Commissioner Hawn reintroduced his motion in a somewhat different format. The motion then read that the application vote previously taken be expunged and that the Commission reconsider the application that has been presented. A vote on this motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. The Commission then held a brief discussion involving Commissioner Lichty's position relative to the vote. He determined that he was comfortable with voting on the issue and that we should proceed to a vote. A motion was made to approve the application. The vote produced 6 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 abstention (Pam Adcock) and 1 open position. 6