Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3592-A Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: August 16, 1994 2. Case No.: Z -3592-A 3. Request: Repeal Ordinance No. 15,700, and revoke a "PCD" district titled CHEVRON SHORT -FORM PCD 4. Location: Southwest Corner of Shackleford Road and Kanis Road 5. Existing Status: The PCD was established in 1989, with a final plan/plat being approved and filed. The site, however, remains undeveloped. According to the Subdivision Regulations, Section 36-458(a)(2), if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final development plan/plat, the planned unit development may be revoked. A new developer, with a new site plan, has proposed a different PCD for the site, and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this new plan. The PCD approved in 1989, which was never constructed, needs to be revoked. 6. Staff Recommendation: Approval 7. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval. Part of the Commission's discussion on the approval of the Coulson Oil - Kanis Road PCD involved a discussion on the fact that the previously approved PCD was being replaced with the new application. (See COULSON OIL - KANIS ROAD -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -3592-F) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 15,700, AND REVOKING A "PCD" DISTRICT TITLED CHEVRON SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -3592-A) AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SHACKLEFORD ROAD AND KANIS ROAD IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 15,700 was passed on June 20, 1989; and, WHEREAS, the Ordinance approved a planned unit development and established a planned commercial district titled Chevron Short -Form PCD (Z -3592-A) on the following described piece of property: A parcel of land in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 9, T -1-N, R- 13 -W, Little Rock, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Starting at the NE corner of the said Section 9; thence S44°081461 -W, 82.66' to a point lying on the west ROW line of Shackleford Road (ROW varies) and being the POB; thence along the said west ROW S0200710011W, 181.751; thence N87°1011011W, 210.001; thence NO200710011E, 2151 to a point lying on the south ROW line of Kanis Road (60' ROW); thence along said south ROW line, S87010'10"E, 166.871; thence S49°4811411E, 54.78' to the POB, containing 1.020 acres, more less. WHEREAS, the ordinance took effect upon final approval of the plan, as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission, and the filing of a final plat for the property on July 25, 1989; and, WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations, Section 36-458(a)(2), provides that if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final development plan/plat, the Board of Directors may revoke a previously approved planned unit development; and, WHEREAS, to date, no building permit has been issued and the Little Rock Planning Commission has now reviewed and recommended approval of a new application by a new developer for the site titled COULSON OIL - KANIS ROAD - SHORT -FORM PCD.. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 15,700 is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat approved by Ordinance No. 15,700 is hereby revoked. SECTION 3. That the PCD district classification of the above listed property is revoked and the zoning classification of the above described property shall revert to its previous C-2 district classification. PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -3592-A NAME: Chevron -- PCD - Short -form LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Shackleford Road at Kanis Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: West Little Rock Partnership Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Diamond Shamrock Tower Associates 717 North Harwood Street 201 South Izard Street Suite 2730 Little Rock, AR Dallas, Texas 75201 375-5331 AREA: 1.02 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-2" PROPOSED USES: Service station and car wash PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 42.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This developer is requesting a PCD on this corner lot for purposes of locating a service station and a freestanding automated car wash. The multiple building issue and reduced setbacks are a primary reason for utilization of the PCD approach. The site at issue will be Lot 1 of the proposed Shackleford West Subdivision Phase I. The developer is proposing adherence to the "C-2" front yard setbacks of 40 feet. However, because this is a small corner tract, the proposed development will include a large retaining wall that recesses the site into the slope. The developer feels that this will reduce the impact of the reduced setbacks and enhance the development. The schematic landscape plan submitted with this application indicates proposed plantings and perimeter treatment of the property. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 10 (Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This developer proposes a significant excavation on the corner of this intersection for purposes of placement of a Chevron station with a car wash. There will be three structures on the site: the principal service station; the gas pumps with a kiosk for payment; and a car wash on the side of the tract. Street improvements are proposed by the developer along both streets to accommodate Master Street Plan requirements and dedication. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot at issue is currently covered by natural foliage. There is little or no disturbance of that except along the Shackleford Road frontage. There are currently no structures on the site. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The Shackleford Road driveway should be moved approximately 18 feet to the south. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The legal, technical and design issues associated with this proposal are as follows: 1. The property currently is zoned "C-2," Shopping Center District, which generally prohibits the establishment of out parcels less than the minimum lot size of five acres. 2. The ordinance provision which permits the establishment of -perimeter lots on shopping center sites is not properly brought into play by this proposal; generally, because there is no shopping center development or supporting commercial around this corner. 3. The principal design concern in this situation would be one of limiting the access onto two arterial streets and coordinating the interior traffic flows with other developments proposed for the site. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 10 (Continued) 4. The creation of a single lot of this size im,acts the design possibilities and use potential o' the balance of this commercial property by the significant excavation proposed and placement of a large retaining wall. S. A site grading plan is required. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff view of this application is that an out parcel designed and located in this fashion is entirely inappropriate to a "C-2," Shopping Center, development. This parcel will become one of several in a strip zoning and design approach to both Kanis and Shackleford Roads, if approved. The property lying between this site and the next corner to the south is too shallow to provide the kind of development that the "C-2" district intends. Therefore, that corner is assuredly a small commercial lot. The same type of development proposal would surely follow at the southeast corner of that intersection. Given the nature of the two large "C-2" parcels lying at this intersection, the future would hold a series of small lot commercial developments without the significant shopping center or structural placement that was offered by the developer when requesting the "C-2" classification. The most serious concern that the Staff has relative to the small lot development of this "C-2" area is the impact that such would have upon both the Farm Bureau development at the northeast corner of the Kanis intersection and the Koger development which lies to the south on top of the hill mass. The kind of clearing and excavation and site development proposed in this PCD would, practically speaking, denude the hillside and expose the Koger project. On the occasion of the submittal of the plat for Planning Commission approval of the streets which lace this ownership, the Staff, the Commission and the developer understood that a preliminary plat would be offered at such time as the first development proposal or lot sale was initiated. This is the first occasion, and Staff wants to take this opportunity to properly guide what we consider to be a critical corner at this intersection and in this area in general. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 10 (Continued) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommends denial of this application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (May 4, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Wes Lowder and Mr. Robert Brown. The Staff offered its recommendation which is primarily a recommendation dealing with use rather than site plan. The site plan as proposed in and of itself was not determined to be out of character for the type of use, but the use is improperly located given the "C-2" classification and the Staff's view of the type of development the ordinance intends. As to the several areas of design that were discussed, the retaining wall along the west and south received considerable commentary. The primary concern of Staff was that the wall physically separated this parcel from the balance of the property so as to severely limit any type of integrated development between the rest of the "C-2" tract and this corner. A lengthy discussion of this proposal, including the plat and the site plan PCD, resulted in a feeling by all parties that this issue will need resolution by.the Planning Commission as to the appropriateness for placing this use on this corner, given the relationships with the neighborhood; making a determination as to the appropriateness of severing satellite lots from a "C-2" tract when no principal use is proposed; and determining the appropriateness of future tracts which are likely to occur along Shackleford Road. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 10 (Continued) AMENDED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the overall schematic plan for the development of Lot 2 and its relationship to the subject property. Staff could support the proposed rezoning if the following conditions were met: 1. The height of signs and lights were limited to 20 feet maximum. 2. A 25 foot landscape strip was provided along Shackleford Road. j Q 3. Existing trees Sre retained o thfexte t feasible" along the periphery of the site, except on the Dry southerly side. Final plans showing retention of trees should be approved by Staff. 4. The sidewalk along Shackleford Road should be moved to the curb to provide for tree retention. The power poles should not be in the sidewalk area. 5. The retaining wall along the southerly side of the site should be constructed of limestone rock comparable to the retaining walls in the Koger site and in the remainder of the subdivision where Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 are located. With these conditions, the proposed development would be compatible with the "0-2" development across Shackleford Road. In addition, the provision of a 25 foot landscape strip would be consistent with the requirements in the "0-2" District. Finally, the overall plan for Lot 2 indicates that access from Lot 1 to Lot 2 would not be feasible. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 16, 1989) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff presented an amended recommendation and indicated support for the proposal if certain conditions were met. The conditions included: the heights of signs and lights were limited to 20 feet maximum; a 25 foot landscaped strip was provided along Shackleford Road from the property line; existing trees were retained to the extent feasible along the periphery of the site except on the southerly side, with final plan showing retention of trees being approved by the Staff; the sidewalk along Shackleford Road should be moved May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 10 (Continued) to the curb to provide for tree retention and the power poles should not be in the sidewalk area; and the retaining wall along the southerly side of the site should be constructed of limestone rock, comparable to the retaining walls in the Koger site and in the remainder of the subdivision where Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 are located. A motion was made to recommend approval of the PCD subject to the conditions as outlined by the Staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.