Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4411-B Staff AnalysisNovember 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1.4 NAME: COULSON OIL, HIGHWAY 10 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Woodland Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: ROBERT BROWN COIILSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-422 221-7880 AREA: 1.84 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Convenience Store with Gas PUMPS and Car Wash; Restaurant with Drive -Through Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE QESTED: 1). Approval of the Highway 10 landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the new line of the right-of-way being dedicated with this application. 2). Approval of a variance of the regulation which requires driveways to be a minimum of 100 feet from intersections. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD development on one of the lots in the Pleasant Ridge Square subdivision, and the development of this site is a part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Square PCD development. The site is a 1.84 acre lot at the corner of Highway 10 and Woodland Rd. Construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps and an enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive-through service is proposed. The convenience store - restaurant is a 4,910 square foot building; the service canopy is 47 feet by 84 feet, and stands 25 feet high; and, the car wash area is 720 square feet. The applicant explains that the site rises in elevation significantly at the south boundary of the tract, and development must be limited to the area closer to Highway 10. This is important, also, since buffering of the residential uses to the south is best accomplished by maintaining an undisturbed area along this south boundary. The applicant proposes to November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 10 (Continued) FILE NO. Z -4411.-B dedicate the required 15 feet of additional right-of-way along Highway 10, but wishes to measure the required 40 foot wide Highway 10 landscape buffer from the location of the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the new line when the right- of-way is dedicated. The site design also causes the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be located approximately 70 feet from Highway 10, and a variance from the requirement that driveways be at least 100 feet from intersections is required. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required additional right-of-way on Woodland Dr. and to make the required street improvements on this street. The applicant states that site lighting will be directed to the vehicular use areas, and light fixtures will be below the elevation of the required fence along the south property line. Signage, the applicant states, will conform to the Highway 10 standards. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the Coulson Oil PCD. Variances from the requirement that the buffer width be measured from the right-of-way line, subsequent to the dedication of additional right-of-way, and from the requirement that driveway access points be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersecting street are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain rises from an elevation of approximately 497 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 530 -535 -feet at the south property line. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The area to the west is zoned R-2, as is the area to the south and east. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERTNG/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) dedication of an additional 12.5 feet of right-of-way for Woodland Rd. will be required; 2) Master Street Plan improvements will be required on Woodland Rd.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction may begin; 4) the cut planned for the rear of the property will require terracing, according to the recommendations of Sec. 29-190 (Every 10 feet of vertical cut requires a 10 foot terrace, with plantings.); 5) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 6) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required; and, 7) the driveway shown on Woodland Rd. is less than 100' from the 2 November 29, 1994 SuBnIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 Continued FILE N Z -4412-H intersection, and this driveway must be moved to the south to conform to the Ordinance requirements. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, Pursuant to the comment for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet the Hwy. 10 Overlay requirements with the exception of a portion of the western perimeter which falls 12 feet short of the 25 foot width requirement. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen this site from the residential property to the south. This screen can either be a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. Trees are required along Highway 10 with an average spacing of 20 feet. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. An 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence will be required around 3 sides of the dumpster. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the slope area must be provided. Because of the degree of cut, Public Works will be requiring terracing to lessen the impact. `Trees will be required to be planted within the terracing areas. Raised curbing, fencing, grading, or other physical protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use areas from falling rocks and erosion. D. ISSIIES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to Commercial in order to allow development of a community level development. The Planning staff adds that, if the shopping center use is not approved, and only the gas station is considered, then there is no justification for the use which could lead to the stripping along Highway 10. 3 November 29,-1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4111 - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Chairperson Chachere stated that the discussion on Items 9, Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD (Z -4411-A) and Item 10, Coulson Oil, Highway 10 -- Short -Form PCD (Z-4411-8) would be conducted as one discussion item, but that each of the items would be voted on individually. Staff presented an overview of each of the two items. Staff pointed out to the -Commission that both items required a variance from the Commission on the depth of the front landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. Mrs. Meredith Catlett, an attorney representing Mr. Lou Schickel, the applicant for Item 9, the Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD, spoke in support Mr. Schickel's application. Mrs. Catlett outlined the scope of the application, and stated that the proposed development consists of a neighborhood shopping center, plus an outparcel for a future office building. She told the Commission that the application is for a mixed use PCD application, and that, therefore, the issue raised regarding single -use PCD's is not applicable. Mrs. Catlett related that, as far back as 1980, the land use plan for the area had indicated that the site was appropriate for neighborhood shopping. She explained that "neighborhood shopping" centers are typically anchored by large super markets, have a maximum size of 100,000 square feet, and occupy a site of approximately 15 acres. She contended, then, that the proposed development fits into the "neighborhood shopping" category exactly, since the proposed development very nearly meets the definition requirements. She contested the staff comment that the shopping center constitutes a community -level shopping center, saying that the definition of a community -level shopping center states that such a center is anchored by two general merchandise stores, that such a center has a maximum size of 300,000 square feet, and that such a site has a maximum area of 50 acres. The proposed project, she concluded, does not fit the definition of the community -level shopping center, but does fit precisely into the definition of the neighborhood shopping center category. Mrs. Catlett added that, in 1986, the land use plan had been updated, and that the land on the south side of Highway 10 at the Southridge intersection had been designated as a commercial node. She said that the request was for a very limited expansion of the commercial node which already exists on the property. She explained that, in 1989, the Highway 10 overlay requirements were adopted, and that the proposed project meets the requirements of the overlay ordinance, as well. She stated that the developer, Mr. Schickel, lives in the area, and plans to own and manage the project for the long term. Mr. Schickel, she said, had met with W November 29,'1994 SUBDZVISI N ITEM NO.: 10 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4411-H and talked with numerous persons from the area, and had met with representatives of various land owners and property owners associations in the area. She reported that she was submitting a petition, signed by over 200 area land owners, who are in support of the project. Mar. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, presented the proposal. He pointed out that the existing E -Z Mart would be razed, and the entrance to the shopping center would be at the location of the present E -Z Mart store. This, he glaborated, would allow the new entrance to take advantage of the existing signalized intersection. He pointed out that the existing E --Z Mart has two access points, and that, when the E -Z Mart is removed and the new center is developed, the new center would have only two access point along the Highway 10 frontage. Thus, he explained, there would be no increase in access points on Highway 10. The shopping center and the Coulson Oil property to the east would, he indicated, share an internal driveway. He stated that the architecture of the proposed center was handsome, and that the architectural style would be carried over to the Coulson Oil development. Mr. David Jones, with Vogel Realty, representing Coulson oil spoke in support of the Coulson Oil proposal. He stated that the agreement between Coulson Oil and Mr. Schickel requires that, when Coulson Oil is granted its building permit, the existing E -Z Mart, which Coulson Oil currently owns, will cease to exist, and that the number of convenience stores will remain at the same number as currently exists: the new Shell store at the eastern end of the block and the Phillips 66 store at the western end. He stated that the new Shell store will meet the Highway 10 overlay standards, whereas the E -Z Mart store does not. He stated that the Coulson Oil persons had gone "step by step" with Lou Schickel and his group to the neighborhood meetings and to other land owners in the area. The petition which has been Presented by Ms. Catlett in support of the shopping center development, he said, was also a document in support of the Coulson Oil development. Mr. Mike Coulson, with Coulson oil, stated that, after the defeat of his proposal for the apposite side of Highway 10, he had heeded the neighborhood's concerns regarding location and being a "part of the neighborhood". He said that there would be no net increase in the number of convenience stores and gas service stations on the property; that the E -Z Mart store would be closed. He said that the architectural style of the new Shell store would be consistent with the shopping center's architectural style. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, described the site development scheme, and stated that, although the Coulson Oil site is being developed on 6 November` "29, "1994 jUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 Continued 1�'IiE NC.: Z-4411-8 a separate lot in the subdivision, it is an integral part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Shopping Center site. He said that the internal traffic circulation system was integrated with the shopping center site, as is the architectural style of the buildings and landscaping. He described the various uses which had been requested in the application. He stated that, counting the green space measured from the existing right-of-way line, site landscaping and green space are close to 50% of the ground space of the site. He reiterated that the site plan which has been presented has the 40 foot minimum green space along Highway 10 measured from the existing right--of-way line, in lieu of from the right-of-way line after dedication of additional right-of- way. He explained, though, that there are no plans to widen Highway 10; that curb -to -curb on Highway 10 is a minimum of 50 feet at the present time, and he requested approval by the Commission of this proposal.- He explained that Woodland Road, the boundary street to the east, is very steep as it extends southward from Highway 10, and that it was necessary to place the access point to Woodland Rd. closer to Highway 10 than the ordinance standard of 100 feet. He explained that the proposed access point to Woodland Rd. is approximately 70 feet off Highway 10, and requested approval of this location. He went on to say that there is adequate frontage on Highway 10 for a third access Point onto Highway 10 from the development, with Woodland Rd. being a forth access point for traffic onto Highway 10, but that the two developers had limited the number of access points on Highway 10 to two, plus Woodland Rd., in lieu of three plus Woodland Rd: Mr. Mark D'Auteuil, who identified himself as president of the Pleasant Forrest Property Owners' Association, stated that the Pleasant Forest neighborhood opposes rezoning of the proerty commercial uses, explaining that traffic would increasethroughor the neighborhood as a result. He said that the Association opposes any extension of commercial rezonings into the neighborhood. Mr. Donald Glowen, who identified himself as -.a resident of Candlewood and representing the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, affirmed that, at the neighborhood meeting with the developers, the group from the neighborhood who had attended were in support of the proposed development, but that the neighborhood still has concerns regarding land use along Highway 10. He asked that a decision on the proposed rezoning be deferred until further study of land use issues could be conducted. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, expressed opposition to rezoning unless there is clear and compelling reason for doing so. She contended that the shopping center, although meeting the definition standards for a neighborhood commercial center, is going to be drawing traffic from a larger area than "the neighborhood", and is more than a 7 November 29, 1994 vSDIVIsTorr ITEM NQ.: 1.0 Continued FILE NO.: Z -4411-B neighborhood center. She expressed concerns regarding the likely increase of traffic which will be generated thorough the neighborhoods to the south, and she expressed concern that the buildings be visually attractive and blend in with the surroundings. Mr. Bill Mauldin, who identified himself as a long-time resident of Walton Heights, said that, at the neighborhood meeting at which the developers' plans had been presented, there were approximately 30 residents represented, but that he did not feel that the positive,reaction to the proposal represented the majority of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood association was concerned that residents were unaware of the scope of the proposed project. He reiterated a request that the decision on the rezoning be deferred until the neighborhood has time to meet with City staff, Commission members, and the developers to study the request further. Mr. Ernie Peters, a traffic consultant for the developers, spoke, and explained that the great majority of traffic coming to the development from the south would be generated by persons from, the neighborhoods to the south, and would not be traffic of persons driving through the neighborhoods from beyond these neighborhoods. He said that the signal light at the Southridge Dr. intersection will be improved, and that the developer will pay the costs of modifying it to be a four-way signal. Steve Giles, deputy City Attorney, stated that the Schickel development seems to meet the ordinance definition for a shopping center, therefore. would meet the criteria for approval as a PCD. The Coulson development, he said, since not having the mixture of uses which are required by the ordinance, would have to meet the definition requirements for a shopping center in order for it to be approved as a PCD. Mr. David Jones stated that the Coulson site is a mixed use commercial development, and, as such, meets the ordinance standard to be classified as a shopping center. He said that he felt that the Coulson proposal could be approved as a PCD. He added, though, that the proposed ordinance changes to permit single -use PCD's would clarify the situation. Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, related that the concern of the City and residents along Highway 10 is that there be a land use plan which promotes retention of the scenic beauty of Highway 10 and does not permit the stripping -out of the corridor. He conceded that the existing residential zoning of the site is inappropriate, but stated that commercial development is also inappropriate. He recommended that a appropriate land use of the site is a mixed office and multi -family development. The proposed development, he said, is too intense, and said that the trade area is too large for 8 _November .29, 1994 _SUBDIVIS16N ITEM NO.: 10 Continued FILE ND.: Z -4411-B classification as a neighborhood shopping center. He expressed concern regarding the increased traffic along Highway 10 and in the abutting neighborhoods. He stated that approval of the PCD's would necessitate a major land use plan amendment approval by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Ball raised the question of whether one PCD could be built without the other; whether the Coulson Oil PCD could be built without the shopping center PCD being started or built. Commissioner Walker stated that it would be a catastrophe if the Coulson Oil site were developed and the shopping center were not; that the two developments need to be paired as a unified development. Mr. Schickel stated that, when the Coulson Oil development is constructed and opened, the E -Z Mart store would cease to operate as a convenience store or gas service station, but that the building would remain until it is torn down as part of the shopping center construction. He stated that the time frame for construction of the shopping center is dependent on getting a lessee for the grocery store, but that he felt that construction would begin within a year. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Coulson had related to him that he would amend the Coulson Oil PCD application to place the condition on it that construction of the Coulson Oil PCD would begin only in conjunction with the shopping center construction; that the Coulson Oil PCD would not be built until and at a different time than the shopping center is built. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD and an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Coulson Oil, Highway 10 PCD, to recommend approval of an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property, and to recommend approval of the street access variance for the driveway location on Woodland Rd.. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z -4411-B OTHER MATTERS RECONSIDERATION NAME: COULSON OIL, HIGHWAY 10 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Woodland Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: ROBERT BROWN COULSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-422 221-7880 AREA: 1.84 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Car Wash; Restaurant with Drive -Through Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RE UESTED: 1). Approval of the Highway 10 landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the new line of the right-of-way being dedicated with this application. 2). Approval of a variance of the regulation which requires driveways to be a minimum of 100 feet from intersections. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD development on one of the lots in the Pleasant Ridge Square subdivision, and the development of this site is a part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Square PCD development. The site is a 1.84 acre lot at the corner of Highway 10 and Woodland Rd. Construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps and an enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive-through service is proposed. The convenience store - restaurant is a 4,910 square foot building; the service canopy is 47 feet by 84 feet, and stands 25 feet high; and, the car wash area is 720 square feet. The applicant explains that the site rises in elevation significantly at the south boundary of the tract, and development must be limited to the area closer to Highway 10. This is important, also, since buffering of the residential uses July,18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B to the south is best accomplished by maintaining an undisturbed area along this south boundary. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required 15 feet of additional right-of-way along Highway 10, but wishes to measure the required 40 foot wide Highway 10 landscape buffer from the location of the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the new line when the right- of-way is dedicated. The site design also causes the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be located approximately 70 feet from Highway 10, and a variance from the requirement that driveways be at least 100 feet from intersections is required. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required additional right-of-way on Woodland Dr. and to make the required street improvements on this street. The applicant states that site lighting will be directed to the vehicular use areas, and light fixtures will be below the elevation of the required fence along the south property line. Signage, the applicant states, will conform to the Highway 10 standards. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the Coulson oil PCD. Variances from the requirement that the buffer width be measured from the right-of-way line, subsequent to the dedication of additional right-of-way, and from the requirement that driveway access points be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersecting street are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain rises from an elevation of approximately 497 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 530-535 feet at the south property line. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The area to the west is zoned R-2, as is the area to the south and east. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments that: 1) dedication of an additional 12.5 feet of right-of-way for Woodland Rd. will be required; 2) Master Street Plan improvements will be required on Woodland Rd.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction may begin; 4) the cut planned for the rear of the property will require terracing, according to the recommendations of Sec. 29-190 (Every 10 -feet of vertical cut requires a 10 foot terrace, with plantings.); 5) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 6) street plans, stormwater detention, and July.18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B boundary survey information will be required; and, 7) the driveway shown on Woodland Rd. is less than 100' from the intersection, and this driveway must be moved to the south to conform to the Ordinance requirements. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, pursuant to the comment for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet the Hwy. 10 Overlay requirements with the exception of a portion of the western perimeter which falls 12 feet short of the 25 foot width requirement. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen this site from the residential property to the south. This screen can either be a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. Trees are required along Highway 10 with an average spacing of 20 feet. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. An 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence will be required around 3 sides of the dumpster. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the slope area must be provided. Because of the degree of cut, Public Works will be requiring terracing to lessen the impact. Trees will be required to be planted within the terracing areas. Raised curbing, fencing, grading, or other physical protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use areas from falling rocks and erosion. D. ISSUESJLEGAL/TECHNICAL/DE�3IQN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to Commercial in order to allow development of a community level development. The Planning staff adds that, if the shopping center use is not approved, and only the gas 3 July 18,.1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B E. F. station is considered, then there is no justification for the use which could lead to the stripping along Highway 10. Ordinance No. 16,577 requires that access points shall not be placed closer than 100 feet to the right-of-way of any intersecting street. The applicant is seeking a variance of this requirement in order for the driveway to Woodland Rd. to be 70 feet ± from Highway 10. All technical requirements for the submittal have been met; there are no issues to be resolved, except as cited above. ANALYSIS: Public Works has indicated that no widening of Highway 10 required at this time, and the applicant has asked for a variance to permit the measurement of the required buffer width to be taken from the existing right-of-way, in lieu from the location of the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. If, in the future, Highway 10 is widened, the width of the landscape buffer will be lessened by the amount of improvements made. The proposed development is a and, not only is the proposed the land use plan, but it is than "neighborhood" oriented. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: community level development, development in conflict with "community" oriented rather is of Staff recommends denial of the PCD application, since the proposed development is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, reviewed with staff the comments contained in the discussion outline. There was discussion regarding the requested variance for the buffer along Highway 10, regarding the various Public Works comments, including the need for the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be a minimum of 100 feet from Highway 10, and regarding the various Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments. Mr. Brown responded that he would meet with the Public Works staff to come to an agreement on the needed modifications, and would provide the requested information as noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the PCD request to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 July, 18, ,1996 SUBDIyz S IO1�i ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Chairperson Chachere stated that the discussion on Items 9, Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD (Z -4411-A) and Item 10, Coulson Oil, Highway 10 -- Short -Form PCD (Z -4411-B) would be conducted as one discussion item, but that each of the items would be voted on individually. Staff presented an overview of each of the two items. Staff pointed out to the Commission that both items required a variance from the Commission on the depth of the front landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. Mrs. Meredith Catlett, an attorney representing Mr. Lou Schickel, the applicant for Item 9, the Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD, spoke in support Mr. Schickel's application. Mrs. Catlett outlined the scope of the application, and stated that the proposed development consists of a neighborhood shopping center, plus an outparcel for a future office building. She told the Commission that the application is for a mixed use PCD application, and that, therefore, the issue raised regarding single -use PCD's is not applicable. Mrs. Catlett related that, as far back as 1980, the land use plan for the area had indicated that the site was appropriate for neighborhood shopping. She explained that "neighborhood shopping" centers are typically anchored by large super markets, have a maximum size of 100,000 square feet, and occupy a site of approximately 15 acres. She contended, then, that the proposed development fits into the "neighborhood shopping" category exactly, since the proposed development very nearly meets the definition requirements. She contested the staff comment that the shopping center constitutes a community -level shopping center, saying that the definition of a community -level shopping center states that such a center is anchored by two general merchandise stores, that such a center has a maximum size of 300,000 square feet, and that such a site has a maximum area of 50 acres. The proposed project, she concluded, does not fit the definition of the community -level shopping center, but does fit precisely into the definition of the neighborhood shopping center category. Mrs. Catlett added that, in 1986, the land use plan had been updated, and that the land on the south side of Highway 10 at the Southridge intersection had been designated as a commercial node. She said that the request was for a very limited expansion of the commercial node which already exists on the property. She explained that, in 1989, the Highway 10 overlay requirements were adopted, and that the proposed project meets the requirements of the overlay ordinance, as well. She stated that the developer, Mr. Schickel, lives in the area, and plans to own and manage the project for the long term. Mr. Schickel, she said, had met with 5 July. 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Continued FILE NO_: Z -4411-B and talked with numerous persons from the area, and had met with representatives of various land owners and property owners associations in the area. She reported that she was submitting a petition, signed by over 200 area land owners, who are in support of the project. Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, presented the proposal. He pointed out that the existing E -Z Mart would be razed, and the entrance to the shopping center would be at the location of the present E -Z Mart store. This, he elaborated, would allow the new entrance to take advantage of the existing signalized intersection. He pointed out that the existing E -Z Mart has two access points, and that, when the E -Z Mart is removed and the new center is developed, the new center would have only two access point along the Highway 10 frontage. Thus, he explained, there would be no increase in access points on Highway 10. The shopping center and the Coulson Oil property to the east would, he indicated, share an internal driveway. He stated that the architecture of the proposed center was handsome, and that the architectural style would be carried over to the Coulson Oil development. Mr. David Jones, with Vogel Realty, representing Coulson Oil spoke in support of the Coulson Oil proposal. He stated that the agreement between Coulson Oil and Mr. Schickel requires that, when Coulson Oil is granted its building permit, the existing E -Z Mart, which Coulson Oil currently owns, will cease to exist, and that the number of convenience stores will remain at the same number as currently exists: the new Shell store at the eastern end of the block and the Phillips 66 store at the western end. He stated that the new Shell store will meet the Highway 10 overlay standards, whereas the E -Z Mart store does not. He stated that the Coulson Oil persons had gone "step by step" with Lou Schickel and his group to the neighborhood meetings and to other land owners in the area. The petition which has been presented by Ms. Catlett in support of the shopping center development, he said, was also a document in support of the Coulson Oil development. Mr. Mike Coulson, with Coulson Oil, stated that, after the defeat of his proposal for the opposite side of Highway 10, he had heeded the neighborhood's concerns regarding location and being a "part of the neighborhood". He said that there would be no net increase in the number of convenience stores and gas service stations on the property; that the E -Z Mart store would be closed. He said that the architectural style of the new Shell store would be consistent with the shopping center's architectural style. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, described the site development scheme, and stated that, although the Coulson Oil site is being developed on July, 18, .1995 HDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Continued FILE N Z -4411-B a separate lot in the subdivision, it is an integral part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Shopping Center site. He said that the internal traffic circulation system was integrated with the shopping center site, as is the architectural style of the buildings and landscaping. He described the various uses which had been requested in the application. He stated that, counting the green space measured from the existing right-of-way line, site landscaping and green space are close to 50% of the ground space of the site. He reiterated that the site plan which has been presented has the 40 foot minimum green space along Highway 10 measured from the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the right-of-way line after dedication of additional right-of- way. He explained, though, that there are no plans to widen Highway 10; that curb -to -curb on Highway 10 is a minimum of 50 feet at the present time, and he requested approval by the Commission of this proposal. He explained that Woodland Road, the boundary street to the east, is very steep as it extends southward from Highway 10, and that it was necessary to place the access point to Woodland Rd. closer to Highway 10 than the ordinance standard of 100 feet. He explained that the proposed access point to Woodland Rd. is approximately 70 feet off Highway 10, and requested approval of this location. He went on to say that there is adequate frontage on Highway 10 for a third access point onto Highway 10 from the development, with woodland Rd. being a forth access point for traffic onto Highway 10, but that the two developers had limited the number of access points on Highway 10 to two, plus Woodland Rd., in lieu of three plus Woodland Rd. Mr. Mark D'Auteuil, who identified himself as president of the Pleasant Forrest Property owners' Association, stated that the Pleasant Forest neighborhood opposes rezoning of the property for commercial uses, explaining that traffic would increase through the neighborhood as a result. He said that the Association opposes any extension of commercial rezonings into the neighborhood. Mr. Donald Glowen, who identified himself as a resident of Candlewood and representing the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, affirmed that, at the neighborhood meeting with the developers, the group from the neighborhood who had attended were in support of the proposed development, but that the neighborhood still has concerns regarding land use along Highway 10. He asked that a decision on the proposed rezoning be deferred until further study of land use issues could be conducted. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women voters of Pulaski County, expressed opposition to rezoning unless there is clear and compelling.reason for doing so. She contended that the shopping center, although meeting the definition standards for a neighborhood commercial center, is going to be drawing traffic from a larger area than "the neighborhood", and is more than a 7 July, 18, .1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued). FILE NO.: Z -4411-B neighborhood center. She expressed concerns regarding the likely increase of traffic which will be generated thorough the neighborhoods to the south, and she expressed concern that the buildings be visually attractive and blend in with the surroundings. Mr. Bill Mauldin, who identified himself as a long-time resident of Walton Heights, said that, at the neighborhood meeting at which the developers' plans had been presented, there were approximately 30 residents represented, but that he did not feel that the positive reaction to the proposal represented the majority of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood association was concerned that residents were unaware of the scope of the proposed project. He reiterated a request that the decision on the rezoning be deferred until the neighborhood has time to meet with City staff, Commission members, and the developers to study the request further. Mr. Ernie Peters, a traffic consultant for the developers, spoke, and explained that the great majority of traffic coming to the development from the south would be generated by persons from the neighborhoods to the south, and would not be traffic of persons driving through the neighborhoods from beyond these neighborhoods. He said that the signal light at the Southridge Dr. intersection will be improved, and that the developer will pay the costs of modifying it to be a four-way signal. Steve Giles, deputy City Attorney, stated that the Schickel development seems to meet the ordinance definition for a shopping center, therefore, would meet the criteria for approval as a PCD. The Coulson development, he said, since not having the mixture of uses which are required by the ordinance, would have to meet the definition requirements for a shopping center in order for it to be approved as a PCD. Mr. David Jones stated that the Coulson site is a mixed use commercial development, and, as such, meets the ordinance standard to be classified as a shopping center. He said that he felt that the Coulson proposal could be approved as a PCD. He added, though, that the proposed ordinance changes to permit single -use PCD's would clarify the situation. Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, related that the concern of the City and residents along Highway 10 is that,there be a land use plan which promotes retention of the scenic beauty of Highway 10 and does not permit the stripping -out of the corridor. He conceded that the existing residential zoning of the site is inappropriate, but stated that commercial development is also inappropriate. He recommended that a appropriate land use of the site is a mixed office and multi -family development. The proposed development, he said, is too intense, and said that the trade area is too large for 8 July, 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B classification as a neighborhood shopping center. He expressed concern regarding the increased traffic along Highway 10 and in the abutting neighborhoods. He stated that approval of the PCD's would necessitate a major land use plan amendment approval by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Ball raised the question of whether one PCD could be built without the other; whether the Coulson Oil PCD could be built without the shopping center PCD being started or built. Commissioner Walker stated that it would be a catastrophe if the Coulson Oil site were developed and the shopping center were not; that the two developments need to be paired as a unified development. Mr. Schickel stated that, when the Coulson Oil development is constructed and opened, the E -Z Mart store would cease to operate as a convenience store or gas service station, but that the building would remain until it is torn down as part of the shopping center construction. He stated that the time frame for construction of the shopping center is dependent on getting a lessee for the grocery store, but that he felt that construction would begin within a year. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Coulson had related to him that he would amend the Coulson Oil PCD application to place the condition on it that construction of the Coulson Oil PCD would begin only in conjunction with the shopping center construction; that the Coulson Oil PCD would not be built until and at a different time than the shopping center is built. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD and an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Coulson Oil, Highway 10 PCD, to recommend approval of an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property, and to recommend approval of the street access variance for the driveway location on Woodland Rd.. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. STAFF REPORT- (JUNE 18, 1996) This issue is before the Commission to request relief from a Commission imposed condition that the Coulson PCD be constructed only when the adjacent shopping center is constructed. This is the only change proposed. The land owner does not know when the center might start but Coulson is ready to start now and has 9 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ_: 2.2_ (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B requested site excavation approval to prepare the site. Staff will offer comment at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its comments on Item No. 22. Jim Lawson, director of Neighborhoods and Planning, briefly outlined the applicant's proposal which was a request of the Commission to relieve the developer of a commission imposed site restriction. Mr. Lawson identified the project as Coulson Oil, a convenience store and food service, which was designed as an integral part of a shopping center complex proposed by Mr. Lou Schickle on the adjacent properties to the west. Lawson pointed out that the minute record reflects that during the course of discussion of the Coulson PCD and the Schickle PCD. thatthey were an integrated development and one should not be developed without the other. Specifically, his comment was that Commissioner Ramsay Ball at that time had concerns about building the convenience without the balance of the shopping center being in place. Lawson told the Commission that he had instructed the applicant that he was bringing this item to the Commission in as much as this was not a debated item at the Board of Directors level or a specifically instructed item for inclusion in the PCD ordinance. However, there was the Commission constraint placed on the project and noted on the file. Lawson said that what staff had agreed to do is, if Coulson wants to begin construction on this convenience store site and then not obtain his certificate of occupancy until the other convenience store immediately to the west is removed staff would approve. Lawson said the shopping center would be sometime before it is constructed. He felt that is was just not reasonable to maintain this restraint on this developer. Lawson also pointed out that he had obtained an agreement with Mr. David Jones, the applicant, at this time. It would be limited grading on the shopping center side of the boundary line, so as to limit the effect of the site clearing. Lawson asked Mr. Jones to respond to this statement as to whether it was appropriate and correct. Mr. David Jones stated he agreed with everything that Jim Lawson had stated except for one clarification. He stated that it was his understanding that the EZ Mart store would have to be shut down but not with the building being removed. It could simply not be operated as a convenience store. 10 July, 18, ,1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B Acting Chairman Putnam inserted his thought at this point that perhaps it could continue to be used as a drycleaner or other retail type use. Jim Lawson then intervened in this discussion to point out that was not what he understood the agreement to include. He stated that he understood that it was to be removed because the existing C -Store sits at an intersection with a traffic signal conflict. Mr. Jones pointed out ultimately the C -Store would be torn down when the shopping center is constructed. Mr. Jones further stated what they are attempting to do here is proceed with getting the Coulson site developed prior to the shopping center's development. Mr. Pickle is simply saying that if he does not t� get around to getting the shopping center constructed at the same timetable as the Coulson site, he is willing to agree to not allow that existing convenience store to continue as a convenience store but allow it to be rented for something else. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, inserted a comment that staff has not even discussed that prospect. A brief exchange between David Jones and Jim Lawson indicated that there was a difference of opinion as to what had been discussed or perhaps agreed upon. Chairman Putnam then offered that the minute record of the PUD hearings indicate the existing EZ Mart closes when the proposed Coulson convenience store opens. Jim Lawson indicated that he understood that it was to be removed and not simply shut down and converted to another use. Lawson then stated that he wanted to make it perfectly clear that what he thought we were doing today was dealing with this as an interpretative kind of issue. The staff has not required him to notify neighbors and we have not published a legal ad or done any of the usual kind of things that we would do for amending a PCD application. If we start talking about changing elements of the other PCD involving the other C -Store, then we have a whole new issue. He stated if thisis the case, we need to start all overAan amended application and we have an whole new issue. This will involve doing new notification, legal ad/and etc. Lawson stated that this was the first time he had heard this proposal attached to what we were to deal with today. kkc.V oo,r Commissioner Adcock then obtainedi for Qre purposes of inserting a comment which she had derived from the minute record. She quoted from it a specific paragraph in the minute record which stated: "Upon completion of the Coulson convenience store that the EZ Mart would disappear and the end product would be one convenience store." 11 July, 18, ,1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued)—FILE NO.: Z -4411-B A brief discussion then followed where several persons indicated certain paragraphs on certain pages of the minute record of this issue. There was general commentary as to what each of those paragraphs meant as applied to the proposal at hand. As a result of this conversation, Jim Lawson offered a comment that the language in one paragraph left open to interpretation as to whether the building was simply to be left unused after EZ Mart abandoned the site or would it be utitilized for some other purpose. Mr. Jones agreed that the EZ Mart building would have to be removed at the time the shopping center is constructed. At this time, he is not disagreeing with that prospect but whether or not the building can be continued with some other use other than EZ Mart. At this point, Jim Lawson posed a question of Mr. Jones as to whether the EZ Mart was a part of the original application for the shopping center PCD. Mr. Jones responded that it was a separate zone site but it was a part of the site plan. He specifically pointed out it was not involved in the Coulson site but in the shopping center site, in as much as it lies at the intersection of South Ridge and Highway 10 which is to be a primary entry point for the shopping center. Jim Lawson asked Mr. Jones what type of uses were listed for the C -Store occupancy after the removal of the EZ Mart. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak on that issue as much as that application was Lou Schickles' and not his. Mr. Jones stated that his interpretation of it was that the types of uses that were permited in the PCD would ultimately control what could occupy the EZ Mart building after the EZ Mart use is removed. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Jones what was meant by cease to exist. He responded by saying that he understood that to mean that it would not continue as a C -Store. Mr. Jones further stated that ultimately the building had to come down in as much as that was a primary entry point to the shopping center. Jim Lawson stated that he understood that comment to mean that the building had to come down. He stated that he never thought about it being occupied by any other use or activity. Commissioner Earnest pointed out that it appeared we had here a severe conflict in opinion on this subject. He stated he was at 12 July, 18, ,1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B this point not certain but perhaps we needed to discuss a deferral motion. Jim Lawson response was that based on what he heard from Mr. Jones that this is a amendment to the PCD and needs to renotify for public hearing and start all over with a review of a revised plan. Again a brief discussion occurred involving David Jones and a number of others. Following that discussion Jim Lawson asked David Jones, if the use of this EZ Mart building is going to put to a use; does it have to be resolved in order for Mr. Jones to build Coulson Oil. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak for Mr. Schickle. He stated that what we are really dealing with in this instance is something that revolves around Mr. Schickle and his project. He stated that Coulson's understanding with Mr. Schickle was he doesn't have any problem with Coulson starting construction of the C -Store if Mr. Jones can get the approval to do so with the understanding that the EZ Mart would cease to exist as a convenience store but would be retained in his ownership and he be able to use the building for some other business activity. Mr. Jones stated that in his reading of the language in the minute record that was his understanding. Jim Lawson stated that his recommendation to the Commission would be that we allow Mr. Jones and Coulson Oil to proceed with their development on the Coulson Oil site and with the understanding that they will not get a Certificate of Occupancy on the new store until the EZ Mart is torn down or dealt with. He pointed out that Mr. Schickle could then file an amended PCD to clarify this other issue. He stated that he felt staff and the applicant were not on the same page on the issue and that staff never did discuss that building being used for anything else. Chairman Putnam then offered comments having to do with access to the site and the need eventually to remove the EZ Mart building. Commissioner McCarthy then inserted a comment that she remembered the conversation around the issue of the EZ Mart and that the Commission at that time was discussing access to the Coulson Oil development. She stated there was at that time a lot of concern on the part of the Commissioners about entrance and exits off Highway 10. She stated that in the discussion of that issue that it was a specific point that access to the Coulson site would in fact be tied to access at Highway 10 at that traffic signal and that's were the issue of razing the EZ Mart begin. There was then a discussion between Mr. Jones, Mr. Putnam and others discussing the location of curb cuts or access points to serve the Coulson site as well as the shopping center, with Mr. 13 July, 18, ,1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B Jones pointing out that this Coulson site did not require the signal access point at this time but that there was another entrance to Highway 10 at the Western boundary of the Coulson site, and that would be constructed with the Coulson development. At this point David Scherer of the Public Works department came forward and presented a graphic illustrating the neighborhood of Highway 10, Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights. This graphic indicated the basic shopping center layout, the Coulson site, the EZ Mart and other surrounding properties. David Scherer offered a lengthy explanation of what was presented on the map and his opinion as how to apply it to the proposal. He addressed several questions to Mr. Jones as to exactly what they proposed to do. Mr. Jones indicated again that they would be building an acces to the Coulson site directly from Highway 10 at their West boundary and that was what was basically approved along with access to Woodland Heights road. Jim Lawson stated at this point that he was not comfortable with this issue at all and he thinks this issue needs to go to the City Board for an amended PCD. David Jones stated that he was not entirely certain that this was all that different and he felt the real issue here was perhaps the EZ Mart building. Jim Lawson reminded Mr. Jones that in a letter he wrote several weeks ago that before he obtained a C/o for the new convenience store that the EZ Mart would be torn down. After additional give and take comments between Mr. Jones and Mr. Lawson, Mr. Jones offered to accept a deferral of this issue for a period of two weeks, which would of course offer the opportunity to have more Commissioners present and Mr. Schiekel in attendance and that maybe Mr. Schiekel will perhaps go ahead and agree to tear the building down. Jim Lawson stated that if in fact Mr. Schiekel is going to want what Mr. Jones first discussed it is going to require a Legal Ad in a public hearing by the Planning Commission and we don't have time to advertise a legal ad before the next meeting in two weeks. But if Mr. Schiekel came into that meeting and agreed to go ahead and tear that building down, that we are close to what staff had already agreed to with Mr. Jones and that would be alright. If Mr. Schiekel wants to pursue the idea of putting another use in that building then Mr. Lawson stated he thinks that is an amendment to the PCD that requires a complete review. Chairman Putnam addressed the meeting by saying he thought Mr. Schiekel was going to need to make these decisions and that during the two weeks Mr. Jones could get with him and they could 14 July, 18, . 1996 ST JTBDTVISI N ITEM N4.: 22 Continued FILE NC.: Z-411-B make a determination on Mr. Schiekel approach, and Mr. Schiekel was the key person to make the decision in this instance. Mr. Jones stated that he was comfortable with the interpretation as he was hearing it from Staff and the Commission, and asked that in the meantime let him have the two week deferral and he would meet with Mr. Schiekel and Mr. Coulson. Mr. Coulson is only absent from the meeting because he is out of town on this occassion and he would hope to resolve the issue in two weeks or not at all. Jim Lawson stated that he did want to resolve this, he didn't want to leave the issue where in two weeks Mr. Schiekel walks in and says he wants to re use the EZ Mart site for some other retail use and if we haven't done a legal ad and we can't deal with the issue. Chairman Putnam voiced a similar comment. Commissioner Brandon then offered a motion for the floor, a motion that this item be deferred for a period of two weeks which would be August 1, 1996,. The motion was seconded. Chairman Putnam then asked for a vote on the motion. Prior to the vote a question was proposed by Commissioner Adcock as to whether or not the Commission could defer this item for two weeks. Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney office responded by stating yes the Commission could do so. Chairman Putnam then asked for a showing of hands on the vote. This produced a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 open Position. 15