Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4343-I Staff AnalysisFILE N Z-4 4 -I NAME: SADDLE CREEK RETAIL CENTER -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Approximately 0.2 mile north of Cantrell Rd., northwest of the present end of Ranch Dr., at the northwest corner of the future intersection of Ranch Dr. and Chenonceau Blvd., in "The Ranch". DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ed Willis - Joe White FINANCIAL CENTRE CORPORATION WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 900 S. Shackleford Rd.. - 401 S. victory St. Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 9.176 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 780 ZONING: 0-2 PR POSED UES: Retail Shops and Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES RE UE TED: A waiver is requested from the requirement that on-site stormwater detention, be provided. STATEMENT QF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a multiple building, mixed use, commercial and office, "planned commercial development" which is to be constructed in two phases over a minimum of two years. The proposed uses are requested to be those as enumerated in the listing of permitted uses for the C-2 zoning district, and, for the first phase, the uses are planned to include restaurants, a day care.facility, physicians and dentists offices, hair styling shops, a convenience store, a decorator shop, and a variety of other retail shops. The first phase is to consist of the construction of three buildings totaling 26,550 square feet of floor space. Phase two will involve construction of three additional buildings containing an additional 33,600 square feet. The total project size, then, will be 60,150 square feet of building area. As part of Phase I development, parking for 131 vehicles is planned; for Phase II, an additional 137 parking spaces is planned. Total parking, then is 268 spaces. As part of this project, Ranch Dr. will be extended from its present end, westward from Ranch Blvd. to intersect with Chenonceau Blvd. Chenonceau Blvd. will be extended from Cantrell Rd. north to beyond the subject development in conjunction with a 260 -unit apartment project which is to lie to the west of Chenonceau FILE Z-4343-1_- nt. Blvd., and which was previously approved by the Planning Commission. Phase I construction is anticipated to begin as early as the fall of 1995, with Phase II construction beginning in mid-1996, depending upon the pace of leasing of the buildings. In conjunction with the "PCD" approval, a preliminary plat for Lot 2, Tract F of The Ranch subdivision is proposed. This lot encompasses the area of the proposed PCD. A. PROPONQLZREQUEST• Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of a "PCD" for the Saddle Creek Retail Center is requested. Planning Commission approval of a one -lot preliminary plat is requested. A waiver of the requirement to provide on- site stormwater detention is requested. B. EXISTINQ CQNDITIONS: The site is presently vacant, and is mostly cleared of trees. The terrain is, for all practical purposes, level. A drainage channel runs along the north boundary of the site. The current zoning of the site is 0-2. The 0-2 district begins at Cantrell Rd., and extends northward to the north boundary of the subject site. This 0-2 district extends east and west from the proposed site. Beyond the site to the north is R-2 zoned property, but abutting the site to the northeast is the Arkansas Baptist High School, a conditional use in the R-2 zoned area. To the northwest, across where Chenonceau Blvd. is to run, is an MF -18 tract, and is the location of the future apartment project mentioned above. C. ENDINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: The Public works staff comments that: 1) Sketch plan information providing floodplain information should be provided prior to Planning Commission action. APDC&E approval, along with a proper grading and excavation permit, must be granted before any work is begun. 2) The entrance drive from Chenonceau Blvd. must be widened to 36 feet. 3) Sidewalks must be constructed on both boundary streets. Plans for the construction of Ranch Dr. to collector street standards must be submitted. 2 FILE Z-4 4 -I (Cont.) 4) Provide a drainage easement for the large drainage way on the North boundary. It is recommended that the structures be held 25 feet, minimum, from the limits of the water surface. The design and construction of this open drainage for the flow of 3500 cfs will require approval. The ditch may require concrete lining or other erosion protection. It is recommended that this large ditch be fenced for the protection of the public. 5) A stormwater detention analysis will be required. The approved drainage system for chenonceau Blvd. does not allow for this site to discharge drainage over the curb or into -the inlets on Chenonceau Blvd. Discharge from this site must be directly into the north drainage ditch. 6) The entrance drives should have adjacent sidewalks connecting to the public sidewalks. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Meters will be off public water mains. An acreage charge of $150 per acre may apply. Little Rock Wastewater utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that easements will be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone, Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department noted that, if the buildings are not to be sprinklered, then the fire hydrants will need to be relocated; then, with Phase II development, fire hydrants will need to be added. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed Ordinance requirements when averaged out; however, portions of the proposed northern and northeastern parking lots extend into the required buffer areas. Curb and guttering, or another approved border, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its -face side directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen this site from the residential zoned properties to the north and northeast. Dumpster locations must be shown and must be 3 FILE Z-4 4 -I n screened on three sides with an eight foot high wood fence or wall. D. I SUEVLEGAL,/TECHNICALIDE619 : The Planning staff comments that the proposed development is located in the Pinnacle Planning District, and the adopted plan designates the site to be developed for "MOC", mixed office and commercial development. The proposed development needs to be a true mix of uses, or it should be an office development. If it is a mix of office and commercial uses, the proposed mix of uses should be specified and be the subject of review. It is noted that the site abuts single- family zoned property lying to the north, and care should be taken in the siting of the development along the northern boundary line. Sec. 36-456 requires, in addition to the information submitted, that contours on the site be provided; that a schematic landscaping plan be included; that sidewalks which meet Ordinance requirements be shown, or a waiver requested; and, that watercourses, floodplains/floodways, or other natural features be shown. The drainage ditch along the north boundary of the site needs to be shown, and its development needs to be addressed. The rights-of-way for the Ranch Dr. and for Chenonceau Blvd. are shown to be 60 feet; the proposed width of the street sections are not shown. Dimensions of driveways need to be furnished; e.g., the dimensions for service drives at the rear of buildings. Possible "blind" corners at the -intersections of parking lots need to be studied. Sufficient maneuvering and turn- around space needs to be furnished for the service drives. The drive-thru at the west end of the "B" building in Phase I needs to be limited to uses which will not cause stacking of vehicles, and thus obstruct the entrance drive onto Chenonceau Blvd. A detail of the project sign, shown at the Ranch Dr.- Chenonceau Blvd. intersection, must be detailed. Sec. 36-502(3) establishes the parking requirements for general business and retail uses: In this section, 1 parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area per building is required, up to 10,000 square feet. From 10,001-20,000 square feet, 95% of this basic requirement is specified. There are two 10,000 square foot buildings and three 11,800 square foot buildings, with one 4,7850 square foot building. The ordinance will require 203 parking spaces; 268 are provided. 4 FILE z-4 4 -I (Cont.) E. ANALYSIS• There are a number of site layout issues which need to be addressed, including concerns of the Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planning staffs. There is information required by Public Works which has not been furnished. There are some landscaping and buffer issues to be resolved. The primary concern, however, is the issue raised by the Planning staff regarding the need to specify a use mix in order to achieve a mixture of uses, or to limit the development to office uses, and the concern about the proximity of the development to residentially zoned property to the north. This planning issue needs to be dealt with, with the use mix established. F:. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD, subject to an acceptable use mix being proposed and approved, and subject to the utility and staff comments being addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 20, 1995) Mr. Ed Willis, with Financial Centre Corporation, the developer, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development to the Subdivision Committee member present, and reviewed with Misters Willis and White the staff comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Willis was concerned that he could not establish a use mix ratio, since, he said, the use depends on the types of tenants who can be recruited. He said that the uses could very well be totally retail and service establishments. Staff reiterated that a mixture of uses was required by the land use plan, and that some acceptable ratio of office and commercial uses was essential for the proposed project to be in conformance with the land use plan. The drive-thru at the west end of the "B" building of Phase I was discussed. Mr. Willis indicated that the drive-thru would probably be a cleaners pick-up window, or some other type of low traffic generator. He said that he would agree to limit the tenant for this space to some acceptable user. The need for turning and maneuvering space at the rear of the buildings, especially the "B" building where the drive is not a thru drive, was discussed. Mr. White responded that the required space would be provided. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the various Public Works concerns, and Mr. White said that the issues would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 5 FILE Z-4343-1 ntJ PLANNING MMIS I N ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Chairman, Mr. Walker, introduced this item for public hearing and requested that staff offer its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, introduced the recommendation by stating that staff was in receipt of a revised site plan resolving most of the issues that had been previously presented to the developer at Subdivision Committee. Wood reported that the few remaining design items to be resolved could be handled at staff level between the Planning Office and Public Works. The remaining overriding issue remains the use mix. Wood reminded those present that at the Subdivision Committee meeting the use mix was the primary concern of Planning Staff since a specific list had not been provided and is required by ordinance. The use mix that staff offers as an appropriate mix for a mixed office/commercial area on the land use plan would be approximately 50/50 that being 50% office and 50% retail. Wood identified the office as being those uses that are permitted in the 0-3 Office District not limited to general or professional office space, but those activities specifically listed. The remaining 50% would be retail uses as provided in one of the several retail districts as the Commission deems appropriate. The staff feels comfortable with C-1 or C-2. After concluding remarks on this element of the recommendation, Wood suggested that staff at this point would recommend denial of the application without the presence of appropriate listing or statement from the developer as to the use mix. Wood pointed out several concerns that were contained in Mr. Willis' cover letter indicating specifically the use mix there being 25% to 35% office with no specifics. He also pointed out that this land area is covered under the adopted Land Use Plan which calls for office/commercial mix. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Ed Willis, who was present representing the application. Mr. Willis offered a general overview of the project identifying first that this would be the first retail project within The Ranch development. He specifically pointed out this property as being part of the retail sales element in the plan following certain modifications that made provisions for the leisure arts construction on the eastern portion of the project. Mr. Willis pointed out that a number of uses that they were looking at for occupancy fall within the office range or 0-3 listing. That is day care center, doctors offices and such as that. He stated that there definitely would be a day care center and perhaps a pharmacy. He indicated that in a future phase, the second phase would perhaps be a clothing store and may be a 6 FILE Na.: Z-4343-1 (Cont.) barber shop, but they really do not know what the final use mix would be at this time. Mr. Willis pointed out the need for personal service kinds of retail in the immediate area because of the number of employees at adjacent business or offices that are in place. The developing single family area and an apartment complex which he is working on at this time, requires service. Mr. Willis indicated that the staff's recommendation was somewhat of a surprise. He was not aware that he was suppose to actually develop a use mix by percentage. He stated that the project certainly would have offices in it, but that would not be the primary emphasis. Mr. Willis stated that there definitely would not be a convenience store in this center and he could perhaps list those kinds of uses that definitely would not be located here. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. Willis stated that they specifically were dealing with a pharmacy at this time and a day care center. He said at this time he was specifically dealing with a restaurant, a sit-down type. Mr. Willis stated that on this first phase they definitely would not be proceeding with construction of it until they had perhaps 13% to 15% of it preleased. Commissioner Putnam then posed a question to Mr. Willis as to whether or not he had discussed this with staff and whether he had a problem with the 50/50 mix that had been offered. Mr. Willis -responded by a lengthy commentary which generally stated that he did not. Willis stated he would rather not be pinned down to specific numbers not knowing exactly what the kinds of businesses would be that lease in this project. Chairman Walker then suggested the possibility that Mr. Willis look at the entire project not just phase one but look at the entire project with a view to 50% office and commercial overall buildings. At a later point, if it was determined that the mix needed to be adjusted for a specific user that he could come back to the Commission. Commissioner Daniel, who is currently on the Subdivision Committee, then offered a comment concerning discussion the Subdivision Committee meeting. He pointed out that the other commissioner, Mr. Ron woods, was present at the Subdivision Committee but is not currently in this meeting. Commissioner Daniels stated that it his perception that in the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Planning staff was rather straight forward in the type of mix they were suggesting at that time. Commissioner Daniel indicated that since the discussion was lengthy during the course of the hearing at Subdivision Committee, Mr. Willis may have left somewhat confused as to what the staff and Committee were suggesting. Commissioner Daniel then moved his comments to a concern that he stated he observed on this plan relative to Mr. Willis' proposal to put a day care center in a strip center. Prior to receiving a 7 FILE NO.: Z-4343-1 (Cont.) response to his comment, Commissioner Daniel yielded the floor to Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles. Mr. Giles offered a comment that it looked like this item was shaping up to be a land use plan discussion item which is primarily a call by the Planning Commission as to the appropriateness of this project. Giles stated that the Commission should have clearly fixed in their mind what the definition of mixed office commercial consisted of in that it should be something given consideration before forwarding this item on to the City Board of Directors. Mr. Giles then proceeded to read the definition of mixed office commercial from the planning district listing. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, followed that commentary with some additional clarification on the staff recommendation. He stated that the staff's suggestion for 50/50 use mix related to 50% 0-3 General Office and 50% as C-2 or C-1 retail type uses. The product of that mix would produce less than 50% Office because of the 0-3 District permits many uses that are not general office but are product or service related. Wood pointed out that Mr. Willis' offering produces a use mix that would permit a convenient store on the use list with a site plan that does not provide for drive through or pump islands. In closing, Wood stated that the staff would be more comfortable if the use mix was purely those permitted uses in the 0-3 district and those permitted by right in C-2 or C-1 with our preference being C-1. The end product of that would be or could be more than 50% of the gross floor area devoted to retail or commercial activity. Willis stated that he would be comfortable if the Planning Commission determined that it desired'to remove some specific uses from the use mix such as a convenience store. Mr. Willis then addressed the site plan again identifying certain use locations. He specifically identified Building "B" on the plan as being partly devoted to a day care center on one end whereby certain provision was made along the northwesterly corner of that structure for outside play area for children. Mr. Willis described the buildings that he is going to construct as a residential design in character more or less having something of the architecture of Kentucky racing stables. Mr. Willis then identified the various structures in Phase I as to the total square footage that would be*- devoted to each and some potential users that might occupy those structures. Mr. Willis offered a lengthy discussion of The Ranch commercial properties, the overall frontage along Highway 10, C-2 zoning and some trades that were accomplished in order to accommodate the leisure arts building on the northeasterly quarter of the site. He indicated that the parcel involved in this application was part of the area that would absorb commercial losses from the 8 FILE NO.; Z -4343-I (Cont.) area occupied later by leisure arts. He stated that over nine years they had planned to do something in this area and that this project was the first commercial project that his firm was offering within The Ranch development. Mr. Willis stated that the reason the developer was proposing to place this commercial site in this area at this time was that they had future plans for a larger and more significant commercial development along the Highway 10 frontage and perhaps a large office building. He stated that, simply put, what he is trying to do here is to develop a commercial office project mix that will be in keeping with The Ranch and compatible with the neighborhood to provide service types of uses. Chairman Walker then offered a lengthy commentary on what he believed to be the circumstance at this point in the public hearing as to what Mr. Willis' options were relative to the various percentages and the options he saw were offered to Mr. Willis. Chairman Walker concluded his comments by asking Mr. Willis whether he was ready to make a selection as to the mix or type of uses with perhaps some activities that would be prohibited or would it be appropriate for the applicant to ask for a two week deferral to reconsider the use mix. A lengthy discussion then followed involving Mr. Willis, staff and certain members of the Commission discussing what the staff recommendation consisted of and the options available to Mr. Willis. Staff clarified the plan element and the reason for the requirement for a specific listing in PUD. Staff stated that this is an ordinance requirement; therefore, that is the reason they are remaining committed to obtaining some type of specific use mix. Again, it was pointed out to Mr. Willis that although 50% of the gross floor area would be limited to 0-3 General Office uses, that is a lengthy use group and most of the listed activities are not office uses. It includes such things as churches and day care centers. The Chairman asked Wood, of the Planning Staff, whether staff preference was C-2, C-1 or perhaps C-3. Wood indicated that staff had a preference of C-2 or C-1; however, that was the Commission's call. After a lengthy discussion of the appropriate district for selection as the 50% commercial or retail, it was determined that the C-2 would be appropriate because the other adjacent commercial properties are currently zoned C-2. The Chairman then determined that there were no additional questions or comments to be offered from the floor or from the commissioners. The Chairman stated for the record the current agreed upon application for PCD, that being, the site plan that has been submitted and reviewed by staff. He also pointed out that the use mix now as has been agreed upon would be 50% retail 9 FILE NO • Z -4343-I (Cont.) or commercial based upon the permitted uses in the C-2 district and that the balance or the other 50% of gross floor area would be devoted to those uses permitted in 0-3 General Office. The Chairman called for a vote on the application as it stands before the Commission. The application was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 10 August 8, 1' ITEM NO FILE NO.: z-434 --I NAME: SADDLE CREEK RETAIL CENTER -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LgCATIaN: Approximately 0.2 mile north of Cantrell Rd., northwest - of - the present- end -of --Ranch -Dr.-,--at -the northwest corner of the future intersection of Ranch Dr. and Chenonceau Blvd., in "The Ranch". DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ed Willis Joe White FINANCIAL CENTRE CORPORATION WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 900 S. Shackleford Rd. 401 S. victory St. Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 9.176 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 780 ZONING: 0-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail Shops and Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES RE ❑ESTER: A waiver is requested from the requirement that on-site stormwater detention be provided. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a multiple building, mixed use, commercial and office, "planned commercial development" which is to be constructed in two phases over a minimum of two years. The proposed uses are requested to be those as enumerated in the listing of permitted uses for the C-2 zoning district, and, for the first phase, the uses are planned to include restaurants, a day care facility, physicians and dentists offices, hair styling shops, a convenience store, a decorator shop, and a variety of other retail shops. The first phase is to consist of the construction of three buildings totaling 26,550 square feet of floor space. Phase two will involve construction of three additional buildings containing an additional 33,600 square feet. The 'total project size, then, will be 60,150 square feet of building area. As part of Phase I development, parking for 131 vehicles is planned; for Phase II, an additional 137 parking spaces is planned. Total parking, then is 268 spaces. As part of this project, Ranch Dr. will be extended from its present end, westward from Ranch Blvd, to intersect with Chenonceau Blvd. August 8, 1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) _ FILE O.: Z -4343-I Chenonceau Blvd. will be extended from Cantrell Rd. north to beyond the subject development in conjunction with a 260 -unit apartment project which is to lie to the west of Chenonceau Blvd., and which was previously approved by the Planning 'Commission. " Phase- I -construction -is -anticipated --to-begin as early as the fall of 1995, with Phase II construction beginning in mid-1996, depending upon the pace of leasing of the buildings. In conjunction with the "PCD" approval, a preliminary plat for Lot 2, Tract F of The Ranch subdivision is proposed. This lot encompasses the area of the proposed PCD. A. PROPOSAL RE ❑EST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of a "PCDII for the Saddle Creek Retail Center is requested. Planning Commission approval of a one -lot preliminary plat is requested. A waiver of the requirement to provide on- site stormwater detention is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently vacant, and is mostly cleared of trees. The terrain is, for all practical purposes, level. A drainage channel runs along the north boundary of the site. The current zoning of the site is 0-2. The 0-2 district begins at Cantrell Rd., and extends northward to the north boundary of the subject site. This 0-2 district extends east and west from the proposed site. Beyond the site to the north is R-2 zoned property, but abutting the site to the northeast is the Arkansas Baptist High School, a conditional use in the R-2 zoned area. To the northwest, across where Chenonceau Blvd. is to run, is an MF -18 tract, and is the location of the future apartment project mentioned above. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY_ COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) Sketch plan information providing floodplain information should be provided prior to Planning Commission action. APDC&E approval, along with a proper grading and excavation permit, must be granted before any work is begun. 2) The entrance drive from Chenonceau Blvd. must be widened to 36 feet. 2 ` August 8, 1 1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4343-I 3) Sidewalks must be constructed on both boundary streets. Plans for the construction of Ranch Dr. to collector street standards must be submitted. 4) Provide•-a�drainage -easement-for- the - large drainage way on the North boundary. It is recommended that the structures be held 25 feet, minimum, from the limits of the water surface. The design and construction of this open drainage for the flow of 3500 cfs will require approval. The ditch may require concrete lining or other erosion protection. It is recommended that this large ditch be fenced for the protection of the public. 5) A stormwater detention analysis will be required. The approved drainage system for Chenonceau Blvd. does not allow for this site to discharge drainage over the curb or into the inlets on Chenonceau Blvd. Discharge from this site must be directly into the north drainage ditch. 6) The entrance drives should have adjacent sidewalks connecting to the public sidewalks. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Meters will be off public water mains. An acreage charge of $150 per acre may apply. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that easements will be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department noted that, if the buildings are not to be sprinklered, then the fire hydrants will need to be relocated; then, with Phase II development, fire hydrants will need to be added. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed Ordinance requirements when averaged out; however, portions of the proposed northern and northeastern parking lots extend into the required buffer areas. Curb and guttering, or another approved border, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular 3 August 8, 1' SUBDIVI IQN ITEM NO.: 3 Cont. FILENO.: Z-434 -I traffic. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen this site from the residential zoned properties to the north and northeast :- Dumps -ter locations - must- ---be -shown -and must - be screened on three sides with an eight foot high wood fence or wall. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the proposed development is located in the Pinnacle Planning District, and the adopted plan designates the site to be developed for 11MOC", mixed office and commercial development. The proposed development needs to be a true mix of uses, or it should be an office development. If it is a mix of office and commercial uses, the proposed mix of uses should be specified and be the subject of review. It is noted that the site abuts single- family zoned property lying to the north, and care should be taken in the siting of the development along the northern boundary line. Sec. 36-456 requires, in addition to the information submitted, that contours on the site be provided; that a schematic landscaping plan be included; that sidewalks which meet Ordinance requirements be shown, or a waiver requested; and, that watercourses, floodplains/floodways, or other natural features be shown. The drainage ditch along the north boundary of the site needs to be shown, and its development needs to be addressed. The rights-of-way for the Ranch Dr. and for Chenonceau Blvd. are shown to be 60 feet; the proposed width of the street sections are not shown. Dimensions of driveways need to be furnished; e.g., the dimensions for service drives at the rear of buildings. Possible "blind" corners at the intersections of parking lots need to be studied. Sufficient maneuvering and turn- around space needs to be furnished for the service drives. The drive-thru at the west end of the "B" building in Phase I needs to be limited to uses which will not cause stacking of vehicles, and thus obstruct the entrance drive onto Chenonceau Blvd. A detail of the project sign, shown at the Ranch Dr.- Chenonceau Blvd. intersection, must be detailed. Sec. 36-502(3) establishes the parking requirements for general business and retail uses. In this section, 1 parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area 4 August 8, V SUBDIVISION .. ITEM NO.: (Q2nt. ) FILE NO, Z_ 4,343-I per building is required, up to 10,000 square feet. From 10,001-20,000 square feet, 95% of this basic requirement is specified. There are two 10,000 square foot buildings and three 11,800 square foot buildings, with one 4,7850 square foot building. --The ordinance -will --require- 203 parking spaces; 268 are provided. E. ANALYSIS• There are a number of site layout issues which need to be addressed, including concerns of the Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planning staffs. There is information required by Public Works which has not been furnished. There are some landscaping and buffer issues to be resolved. The primary concern, however, is the issue raised by the Planning staff regarding the need to specify a use mix in order to achieve a mixture of uses, or to limit the development to office uses, and the concern about the proximity of the development to residentially zoned property to the north. This planning issue needs to be dealt with, with the use mix established. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD, subject to an acceptable use mix being proposed and approved, and subject to the utility and staff comments being addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 20, 1995) Mr. Ed Willis, with Financial Centre Corporation, the developer, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development to the Subdivision Committee member present, and reviewed with Misters Willis and White the staff comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Willis was concerned that he could not establish a use mix ratio, since, he said, the use depends on the types of tenants who can be recruited. He said that the uses could very well be totally retail and service establishments. Staff reiterated that a mixture of uses was required by the land use plan, and that some acceptable ratio of office and commercial uses was essential for the proposed project to be in conformance with the land use plan. The drive-thru at the west end of the "B" building of Phase I was discussed. Mr. Willis indicated that the drive-thru would probably be a cleaners pick-up window, or some other type of low traffic generator. He said that he would agree to limit the tenant for this space to some acceptable user. The need for turning and maneuvering space at the rear of the buildings, especially the "B" building where the drive is not a thru drive, was discussed. Mr. White 67 August 8, 15 SQHDIVISI N IT n FILE O • Z-4343-1 responded that the required space would be provided. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the various Public Works concerns, and Mr. White said that the issues would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COM.+'iISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Chairman, Mr. Walker, introduced this item for public hearing and requested that staff offer its recommendation. Richard wood, of the Planning Staff, introduced the recommendation by stating that staff was in receipt of a revised site plan resolving most of the issues that had been previously presented to the developer at Subdivision Committee. Wood reported that the few remaining design items to be resolved could be handled at staff level between the Planning office and Public Works. The remaining overriding issue remains the use mix. Wood reminded those present that at the Subdivision Committee meeting the use mix was the primary concern of Planning Staff since a specific list had not been provided and is required by ordinance. The use mix that staff offers as an appropriate mix for a mixed office/commercial area on the land use plan would be approximately 50/50 that being 50% office and 50% retail. Wood identified the office as being those uses that are permitted in the 0-3 Office District not limited to general or professional office space, but those activities specifically listed. The remaining 50% would be retail uses as provided in one of the several retail districts as the Commission deems appropriate. The staff feels comfortable with C-1 or C-2. After concluding remarks on this element of the recommendation, wood suggested that staff at this point would recommend denial of the application without the presence of appropriate listing or statement from the developer as to the use mix. Wood pointed out several concerns that were contained in Mr. Willis' cover letter indicating specifically the use mix there being 25% to 35% office with no specifics. He also pointed out that this land area is covered under the adopted Land Use Plan which calls for office/commercial mix. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Ed Willis, who was present representing the application. Mr. Willis offered a general overview of the project identifying first that this would be the first retail project within The Ranch development. He specifically pointed out this property as being part of the retail sales element in the plan following certain modifications 6 August 8, 1' SpBDIVI�I_O ITEM NO,; 3 (Cont.) FILE NQ.: Z -4343-I that made provisions for the leisure arts construction on the eastern portion of the project. Mr. Willis pointed out that a number of uses that they were looking at for occupancy fall within the office range or 0-3 listing. That is day care center, doctors offices and such as that. He stated that there definitely would be a day care center and perhaps a pharmacy. He indicated that in a future phase, the second phase would perhaps be a clothing store and may be a barber shop, but they really do not know what the final use mix would be at this time. Mr. Willis pointed out the need for personal service kinds of retail in the immediate area because of the number of employees at adjacent business or offices that are in place. The developing single family area and an apartment complex which he is working on at this time, requires service. Mr. Willis indicated that the staff's recommendation was somewhat of a surprise. He was not aware that he was suppose to actually develop a use mix by percentage. He stated that the project certainly would have offices in it, but that would not be the primary emphasis. Mr. Willis stated that there definitely would not be a convenience store in this center and he could perhaps list those kinds of uses that definitely would not be located here. In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. Willis stated that they specifically were dealing with a pharmacy at this time and a day care center. He said at this time he was specifically dealing with a restaurant, a sit-down type. Mr. Willis stated that on this first phase they definitely would not be proceeding with construction of it until they had perhaps 13% to 15% of it preleased. Commissioner Putnam then posed a question to Mr. Willis as to whether or not he had discussed this with staff and whether he had a problem with the 50/50 mix that had been offered. Mr. Willis responded by a lengthy commentary which generally stated that he did not. Willis stated he would rather not be pinned down to specific numbers not knowing exactly what the kinds of businesses would be that lease in this project. Chairman Walker then suggested the possibility that Mr. Willis look at the entire project not just phase one but look at the entire project with a view to 50% office and commercial overall buildings. At a later point, if it was determined that the mix needed to be adjusted for a specific user that he could come back to the Commission. Commissioner Daniel, who is currently on the Subdivision Committee, then offered a comment concerning discussion the Subdivision Committee meeting. He pointed out that the other commissioner, Mr. Ron Woods, was present at the Subdivision Committee but is not currently in this meeting. Commissioner 7 August 8, 1 SaBDIVISTO ITEM(Cont')FILE NO • 2--4 4 -I Daniels stated that it his perception that in the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the Planning staff was rather straight forward in the type of mix they were suggesting at that time. Commissioner Daniel indicated that since the discussion was lengthy during the course of the hearing at Subdivision Committee, Mr. Willis may have left somewhat confused as to what the staff and Committee were suggesting. Commissioner Daniel then moved his comments to a concern that he stated he observed on this plan relative to Mr. Willis' proposal to put a day care center in a strip center. Prior to receiving a response to his comment, Commissioner Daniel yielded the floor to Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles. Mr. Giles offered a comment that it looked like this item was shaping up to be a land use plan discussion item which is primarily a call by the Planning Commission as to the appropriateness of this project. Giles stated that the Commission should have clearly fixed in their mind what the definition of mixed office commercial consisted of in that it should be something given consideration before forwarding this item on to the City Board of Directors. Mr. Giles then proceeded to read the definition of mixed office commercial from the planning district listing. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, followed that commentary with some additional clarification on the staff recommendation. He stated that the staff's suggestion for 50/50 use mix related to 50% 0-3 General Office and 50% as C-2 or C-1 retail type uses. The product of that mix would produce less than 50% Office because of the 0-3 District permits many uses that are not general office but are product or service related. Wood pointed out that Mr. Willis' offering produces a use mix that would permit a convenient store on the use list with a site plan that does not provide for drive through or pump islands. In closing, Wood stated that the staff would be more comfortable if the use mix was purely those permitted uses in the 0-3 district and those permitted by right in C-2 or C-1 with our preference being C-1. The end product of that would be or could be more than 50% of the gross floor area devoted to retail or commercial activity. Willis stated that he would be comfortable if the Planning Commission determined that it desired to remove some specific uses from the use mix such as a convenience store. Mr. Willis then addressed the site plan again identifying certain use locations. He specifically identified Building "B" on the plan as being partly devoted to a day care center on one end whereby certain provision was made along the northwesterly corner of that structure for outside play area for children. 8 August 8, 1 BDIVI I ITEM NO.:(Cont.)FILE N Z-4343-1 Mr. Willis described the buildings that he is going to construct as a residential design in character more or less having something of the architecture of Kentucky racing stables. Mr. Willis then identified the various structures in Phase I as to the total square footage that would be devoted to each and some potential users that might occupy those structures. Mr. Willis offered a lengthy discussion of The Ranch commercial properties, the overall frontage along Highway 10, C-2 zoning and some trades that were accomplished in order to accommodate the leisure arts building on the northeasterly quarter of the site. He indicated that the parcel involved in this application was part of the area that would absorb commercial losses from the area occupied later by leisure arts. He stated that over nine years they had planned to do something in this area and that this project was the first commercial project that his firm was offering within The Ranch development. Mr. Willis stated that the reason the developer was proposing to place this commercial site in this area at this time was that they had future plans for a larger and more significant commercial development along the Highway 10 frontage and perhaps a large office building. He stated that, simply put, what he is trying to do here is to develop a commercial office project mix that will be in keeping with The Ranch and compatible with the neighborhood to provide service types of uses. Chairman Walker then offered a lengthy commentary on what he believed to be the circumstance at this point in the public hearing as to what Mr. Willis' options were relative to the various percentages and the options he saw were offered to Mr. Willis. Chairman Walker concluded his comments by asking Mr. Willis whether he was ready to make a selection as to the mix or type of uses with perhaps some activities that would be prohibited or would it be appropriate for the applicant to ask for a two week deferral to reconsider the use mix. A lengthy discussion then followed involving Mr. Willis, staff and certain members of the Commission discussing what the staff recommendation consisted of and the options available to Mr. Willis. Staff clarified the plan element and the reason for the requirement for a specific listing in PUD. Staff stated that this is an ordinance requirement; therefore, that is the reason they are remaining committed to obtaining some type of specific use mix. Again, it was pointed out to Mr. Willis that although 50% of the gross floor area would be limited to 0-3 General Office uses, that is a lengthy use group and most of the listed activities are not office uses. It includes such things as churches and day care centers. 9 August 8, lr�� ■ : ■ I.. -M*1+1 ITEM NO,; 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4343=I The Chairman asked Wood, of the Planning Staff, whether staff preference was C-2, C-1 or perhaps C-3. Wood indicated that staff had a preference of C-2 or C-1; however, that was the Commission's call. After a lengthy discussion of the appropriate district for selection as the 50% commercial or retail, it was determined that the C-2 would be appropriate because the other adjacent commercial properties are currently zoned C-2. The Chairman then determined that there were no additional questions or comments to be offered from the floor or from the commissioners. The Chairman stated for the record the current agreed upon application for PCD, that being, the site plan that has been submitted and reviewed by staff. He also pointed out that the use mix now as has been agreed upon would be 50% retail or commercial based upon the permitted uses in the C-2 district and that the balance or the other 50% of gross floor area would be devoted to those uses permitted in 0-3 General Office. The Chairman called for a vote on the application as it stands before the Commission. The application was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 10