Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4411-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-441 1-D NAME: Pleasant Ridge Revised Long -form PCD LOCATION: South of Cantrell Road, East of Pleasant Ridge Road DEVELOPER: Pleasant Ridge Development Company, Inc 11601 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 25.71 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: FT. NEW STREET: 0 PCD and R-2, Single-family District Shopping Center and Single-family Residential Revised PCD Shopping Center VARIAN CESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow an increased cut along the western property line (Fair View Road). 2. A deferral of Master Street Plan requirements for Fairview Road. BACKGROUND: On December 20, 1994, through Ordinance No. 16,808, the City Board of Directors approved a PCD that would allow the development of a mixed use "Neighborhood Commercial' shopping center and an accompanying office development. The site was a 12.83 acre -tract and of the area, 11.48 acres was proposed to be developed as the shopping center. The proposed structure was 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking spaces were provided. The remaining 1.35 -acre tract was to have 10,000 square feet of office building space with an additional 50 parking spaces. The uses proposed for the shopping center were all by -right C-2 and C-3 zoning district uses, except that there was to be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car E NO.: Z -441 1-D (Cont. washes within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office building were all uses by -right in the 0-2 and 0-3 zoning district. On January 9, 1997, the Commission reviewed a request for a change in the right--of- way dedication and street improvement requirement to Fairview Road, The developer requested all right-of-way dedication and street improvements be taken from the property located to the east of Fairview Road. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,331 on December 3, 1996, which allowed the five year deferral of street improvements (or until development on the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD) to Fairview Road, The Little Rock Planning Commission granted a three year time extension for the Proposed submission of the final development plan at their December 22, 1997, Public Hearing, The applicant began the development of a Final Development Plan for the site. The applicant submitted the Final Development Plan for the Pleasant Ridge Square Long -form PCD, which was approved on February 1, 2002, A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site now contains 25.7 acres and is located south of Cantrell Road and east of Pleasant Ridge Road. The proposed site plan includes the development of 270,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The request includes C-3, General Commercial District uses as allowable uses for the proposed development. The applicant has indicated parking of 1,258 parking spaces. Access to the site will be accomplished from six driveway locations. The center will have main driveways from Cantrell Road and Woodland Heights Road. Secondary access points will be from Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road. A portion of the site is currently zoned PCD. The portion along Summit Road is zoned R-2, Single-family. The developer is requesting two out -lots fronting on Cantrell Road for possible restaurant locations. A deferral is being requested for a portion of the Master Street Plan improvements to Fairview Road. The request is due to the uncertainty of the property west of Fairview Road and the potential for redevelopment of a non- residential use. Land alteration variances for height of the cut along Fairview Road (60 foot) and to grade the entire site with Phase I are also being requested. The applicant is also requesting the closure of Summit Street as a part of the application and a request to change the City's Future Land Use Plan (Item No. 12 File No. LU04-01-04 a change from Suburban Office to Commercial and Public Institutional). E FILE NO.: Z -4411-D Cont. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant adjacent to Cantrell Road and was previously cleared and graded. Along Summit Street there are single-family homes with tree covered lots. There is also a single-family home located along Fairview Road to the south of the site. There is a mixture of uses in the immediate area including single- family residential, multi -family residential, a private school, a church, office and retail. The area to the south and east are predominately office uses with a church and school located to the southwest and west. There is a single-family home located on a large tract to the west of the site abutting Fairview Road at Summit Street. There are single-family homes located to the southwest of the site on R-3, zoned property. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents and business owners. The Walton Heights/Candlewood Property Owners Association, the Peidmont Neighborhood Association, the Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1. Cantrell Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 55 -feet from centerline will be required, with additional right —of -way at intersections. 2. Right-of-way dedications and improvements on Commercial Streets indicated are acceptable. 3. This portion of Cantrell Road is heavily congested and functions at an extremely low level of service during peak hours. A traffic study of impacts from this large scale development is required. 4. With future development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5 - foot sidewalk with the planned development. Additional lanes and turn lanes would be required by the Master Street Plan for Cantrell Road. Additional lanes would also be required at the main entrance at South Ridge. 5. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that this project proposes a large scale haul -off of excavated materials. 6. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location of the storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3 FILE NO.: Z -441 1-D Cont. 7. On site striping and signage plans should be forwarded to Public Works, Traffic Engineering for approval with the site development package. Signal improvements may also be required. 8. Hauling of fill materials on or off the site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 South Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more information. 9. Summit Road right-of-way must also be dedicated and street improvements made to the standard for a commercial street. 10. Truck access should not be taken from Fairview Road, since deferral of improvements to this sub standard street is requested. While it is certainly acknowledge that the road has major grade problems, deferring improvements adjacent to such a major development may not be appropriate. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if' service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private.. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. Cutting and plugging of existing water mains (8 -inch and 3 -inch water mains) and any other facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, would be done at the expense of the developer. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire De artment: Approved as submitted. Counly Planning: No comment received. CATH: Provide bus stop and layover locations on the proposed site pian, which will safely and efficiently allow buses to drop-off and layover for a few minutes until the time of scheduled return trips. In addition CATA would like to enter and F11 FILE NO.: Z-4411-D(Cont. exit the site from Cantrell Road at signalized intersections. Contact CATA at 375-6717 for additional information. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial and Suburban Office for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to the PCD for an expansion of the project. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda (Item No. 12 — File No. LU04-01-04). Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Pleasant Ridge and portions of Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road are shown as Collectors. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and street improvements. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The traffic and Transportation goal listed an action statement of "Amend the Master Street Plan to realign Pleasant Ridge Road with Southridge Drive - High Priority". This would affect the zoning application by the dedication of a Collector street in the northwest corner of the site. In the Sustainable Natural Environment Goal listed action statements of 1) Preserve the Highway 10 Overlay District, 2) vigorously enforce the ordinance for hillside protection, and 3) Vigorously enforce the ordinance for the preservation of trees. These action statements will affect landscaping and signage along Cantrell Road, any proposed cuts to the hillsides and preservation of trees. Landscape: A portion of the proposed on-site landscaping strip width along Pleasant Ridge Road appears to be less than the 7 -feet required by the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance and the 9 -feet required by the Landscape Ordinance. Interior landscape islands need to be more evenly distributed to help break up the proposed large areas of asphalt. The Landscape Ordinance requires at least eight percent of the interior of vehicular use areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 300 square feet in area and 7 % feet in width. The proposed landscape strip width west of the valet parking lot appears to be less than the minimum 6 feet and 9 inches required by the Landscape Ordinance and the 25 -foot average of the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance. The proposed service area should be screened from the residential properties across Fairview Road. Because of the elevation difference this screen should consist of evergreen trees (such as Leyland cypress) spaced 15 -feet on center, planted on the higher elevated side of the street landscape buffer. 5 G. NO.: Z -4411-D A 6 -foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings, is required where adjacent to residential properties to the south and west. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (June 24, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates and Mr. Ernie Peters of Peters and Associates were present representing the request. Staff stated the request was to place a shopping center on the site currently zoned PCD, R-2 and 0-3. Staff also stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested Mr. White provide information concerning the treatment of the rear of the proposed building, a cross section of the site showing sight lines and details concerning proposed signage. Staff also requested information concerning the proposed screening mechanism for the service bay of Building A. Staff stated there were concerns since the service bay would be oriented to Cantrell Road. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit as well as a hauling permit would be required. Staff stated there were concerns with the drive at Fairview Road being located at the crest of the hill and the applicant's request for a deferral of street improvements to the roadway. Mr. White suggested the applicant construct street improvements to each end of the road saving the area with the largest elevation change until the redevelopment of the property located to the west. Staff stated they would like to discuss this in detail and suggested Mr. White meet with staff individually concerning the required street improvements. Staff stated a large part of the decision of addition lanes and street improvements would be related to the findings of the traffic study. Mr. Peters stated the traffic study would be submitted in a few days at which time staff and the owner would sit down to discuss necessary improvements. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated the site plan appeared to falls short of the required landscaping in a few locations. Staff stated an area along Pleasant Ridge Road appeared to be less than the seven feet required by the Highway 10 Overlay and the nine feet required by the Landscape Ordinance. Staff also stated additional interior islands were necessary to break up the expansion of asphalt. Staff stated screening would be required along Fairview Road to block view of the service drive. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. n FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant provided staff with only a portion of the requested information from the June 24, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has acquired additional land area indicated on the proposed site plan as future acquisition area but has not included development plans for these areas. In addition staff has some questions and concerns with the traffic study submitted by the applicant. Due to the size of the proposed development and the potential impacts of the proposed development, staff is requesting this item be deferred to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing to allow additional time for review and analysis. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of the request to the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 15, 2004) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated due to the large number of issues remaining unresolved with the proposed development they were recommending the item be deferral to the August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to allow staff and the applicant additional time to resolve these issues. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair placed the item for inclusion on the consent agenda for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Staff is not prepared to provide a recommendation at this time. Staff has review the site plan and is providing below the facts related to the proposed site development. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues related to traffic and sight design and proposed building elevations. A recommendation will be provided to the Commission at their public hearing. The development sign located on Highway 10 has been indicated as a maximum of fifteen feet wide 10 feet in height and one hundred fifty square feet in area. The applicant has also indicated signage for each of the out -parcels proposed along Highway 10. Each of these signs are proposed as a maximum of ten feet in width and eight feet in height with a maximum sign area of eighty square feet. There are shopping center development signage located on retaining walls on the western and eastern driveway entrances from Highway 10. The applicant has indicated the proposed signage will be a part of the hardscape of the development. A monument style sign is also proposed at the rear entrance to the shopping center along Woodland 7 FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont. Heights/Fairview Road. The site is proposed as a twelve foot wide, eight foot tall sign with a sign area of one hundred square feet. The proposed site plan indicates the 40 -foot landscape strip along Highway 10 measured from the "original property line". The site plan indicates a dedication of right- of-way 55 -feet from centerline. The current right-of-way adjacent to the site is 40 -feet. Per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District Ordinance the 40 -foot landscape strip is to be measured from the new property line, after right-of-way dedication. The proposed site plan does include the placement of several dumpster locations and two locations for trash compactors. The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be screened according to ordinance standards or at least two feet above the finished container height. There are dumpster locations adjacent to Fairview Road. Per the zoning ordinance dumpsters are to be oriented away from the street side of the property and adequately screened from residential property. The indicated site plan appears to delineate areas for interior landscaping but based on the scale of the drawing it is difficult to determine if the areas are sufficient to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated all landscaping requirements will be met. At the time of building permit a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect will be required to be submitted and approved. The proposed site plan includes the proposed screening material for the area to the south adjacent to residentially zoned property. The applicant has indicated evergreen plantings at the higher elevations will be added such as Leyland Cypress at 15 -foot on center will be added to aid in the screening of adjoining properties. The site plan includes the placement of the plantings along Fairview Road and to the south adjacent to the Church site and the office complex. The indicated land use buffers appear to meet the minimum ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated pedestrian tables on the proposed site plan to provide access to the various activities on the site. The site plan includes the placement of parking along the western portion of the site in a horseshoe pattern but on the eastern portion of the property the applicant has indicated the more traditional big box asphalt parking lot. The applicant has indicated based on different style users the proposed parking layout may vary. The applicant has indicated for example a grocery store prefers a more traditional type parking with the straight rows of parking in front of the business. Cross sections and view corridor sections have been provided to staff to allow the view corridors from Highway 10, from Fair View Road, from Woodland Heights Road and the area near Cedar Branch Drive. The cross sections indicate the existing elevation of Highway 10 is at 480 feet and the out parcel building adjacent to Highway 10 will be set at 500 -feet. The cross section indicates the sight line will extend over the buildings of the site and the development to the south of the site will not be visible from Highway 10. The applicant has indicated at Fairview Road the building will be set at 520 -feet. The 13 FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont height of the crest of Fairview Road is 570 -feet after the roadway has been reconstructed to improve the sight distance. The sight line will be over the proposed buildings. At Fairview Road and Cedar Branch Drive and Woodland Heights Drive the elevation of the street is set at 540 -feet and the proposed building pad will be set at 520 -feet. The proposed site plan indicates a bus stop near the entrance at Woodland Heights Road. CATA has indicated their desire is to enter the site at a traffic signal and to exit the site at a traffic signal with an area set aside for layover. The applicant has meet with CATA and CATA has indicated the provided location is acceptable. The applicant has provided a detailed description of the materials and elements intended to incorporate into the design of the Pleasant Ridge Center. The applicant has indicated the primary material for the front elevation will be various shades of brick with cast stone bases and horizontal accents. The only other material proposed would be stucco in some areas. The applicant has stated individual tenants in the shop area will be responsible for their own designs within the front openings. There will be a tenant manual, which limits their use of materials and design. The past experience with this is that it provides a varied and interesting front fagade. Additionally, the applicant will be incorporating design feature such as a tower and simulated two story elements as appropriate. The applicant has stated the sidewalks in front of the center will use a variety of pavements and incorporate both grade and raised landscape areas will be brick and pre -cast stone caps. The owner also indicated plans for incorporating items of interest such as sculptures. The rear and side elevations will have a combination of brick painted concrete block or half high colored block. The buildings will be broken up so that no elevation will be long and monotonous. The applicant has indicated a total of 1200 on-site parking spaces. The total square footage of the proposed shopping center 300,000 square feet. The typical minimum parking required for a shopping center of this size would be 1333 parking spaces. The applicant has requested a deferral of street improvements to Fairview Road. The applicant has indicated a dedication of 30 -feet from centerline will be given to the City but the developer request a deferral of the '/ street improvement of the commercial street until development adjacent to the site is completed. The applicant has indicated a hill must be removed to allow for proper sight distance and is requesting a deferral to allow all the street construction to take place at one time. The applicant is requesting a 60 -foot cut along Fairview Road. The applicant has indicated once the street is reconstructed the cut would then be a 50 -foot cut. The ordinance typically allows for a maximum of a 30 -foot cut with 15 -foot terraces. Any cut above the 30 -foot cut requires prior approval from the Planning Commission. 9 FILE NO.: Z -441 1-D (Cont. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: Traffic Engineering has completed its review of the traffic study prepared by Peters and Associates. Although the consultants indicated that the Center would have no significant impacts on traffic flow or negative impacts on the adjacent neighborhood, staff feels that there will be significant impacts and that sufficient mitigations to address traffic issues have not been identified or planned by the developer. Staff has modeled Cantrell Road during the PM rush hour traffic utilizing the Synchro Model developed by the consultant. When completing the analysis utilizing SimTraffic, simulation software, staff found that the traffic, stacks up in the westbound direction on Cantrell clear through the Rodney Parham signal and that Drive B and Woodland Heights Road at Cantrell are in complete gridlock due to unavailable gaps in westbound traffic for left turning vehicles. Further study of the Cantrell corridor adjacent to the development indicates that there are solutions that can be implemented to address the increased congestion caused by the proposed development. The solutions will require driveway and signal modifications to address these issues. The increased traffic load in conjunction with reduced green time for the westbound movement on Cantrell at Southridge causes traffic to stack to the east clear through the Rodney Parham intersection. When analyzing the existing traffic system with the traffic from the proposed development not included in the flows, traffic moves unimpeded. Presently, the PM peak hour traffic on Pleasant Forest is about 300. Additional analysis done by the consultants indicates an increase of about 70 vehicles or 23% in this traffic as a result of the proposed development. This is based on the assumption that there will be no congestion on Cantrell Rd. and vehicles leaving the shopping center will have no problems accessing Cantrell. However, as the simulation model shows, there will be a lot of congestion on Cantrell and as a result of this, there could be an increase in the amount of traffic using the southern access to the shopping center. It should also be noted that there is, a speeding problem on Pleasant Forest Rd. Residents have long been complaining about this. Since Pleasant Forest has no traffic signals and links Hinson and Rodney Parham, any congestion on Cantrell Rd. is likely to force more traffic onto Pleasant Forest thus worsening the speeding problem. In order to address this and preserve the character of the neighborhood, traffic calming devices such as traffic circles, chicanes, partial diverters, etc. are recommended to be constructed on Pleasant Forest. As far as the rear entrance, staff believes if the entrance is not built, the traffic will find their way through the residential area regardless. There are rear entrances on Fairview and Woodland Heights Road, where vehicles can enter and exit the proposed development. Traffic will find the route with the shortest drive time, and if that is through Pleasant Forest, then they will go that way. If the roundabout is constructed, then the median shown just north of the roundabout must be constructed without median cuts throughout the section to the end of the median as shown. The cut that is shown is too close to the roundabout, thus causing an unsafe condition. 10 FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to resolve outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. Staff will provide a recommendation at the Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 26, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There was a number registered objectors present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating there had been a number of changes made to the proposed development in the past few days. Staff stated Driveway B was now the main entrance to the shopping center. Staff stated the applicant had indicated they were willing to install a traffic signal at Driveway B to help resolve traffic conflicts on Cantrell Road. Staff stated the proposed traffic signal would allow for exits onto Cantrell Road while turning was taking place on Southridge Road. Staff stated this would facilitate traffic flow in the area. Staff stated the applicant had also indicating the driveway at Southridge would be a right -in -right -out only driveway. The applicant addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed request. The applicant stated the Commission had received a copy of a petition that contained 500+ signatures in support of the proposed development. The applicant also stated there had been neighborhood meetings to inform the residents of the proposed request. The developer's architect addressed the Commission stating the proposed development would incorporate several features including landscaping and hardscaping materials. He stated the site would be pedestrian friendly with cross walks at the level of sidewalks. He stated pedestrian tables would be added to parking fields to allow pedestrian's ease of access to the center. He stated visual barriers would be added to the site to protect nearby residents. The applicant stated there were a number of concessions made prior to the public hearing. He stated the applicant was no longer requesting the southern entrance into the proposed development. He stated the developer was no longer requesting a deferral of street improvements to Fair View Road. He stated a stop light would be added to Driveway B to help resolve traffic concerns. Mr. Mike Colson addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He stated the development would have a beneficial impact on properties in the area. Mr. Mike Montgomery addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He stated there were two point of consideration the Commission should take into account. He stated he was a resident of Pleasant Valley and he was not notified by the Property Owners Association of a vote on the proposed request even though they had submitted a letter of opposition of the proposed request. He stated the membership was not poled to find a general consensus of the proposed development. He stated the second point was the developer was responsive to residents and business owners within his existing developments. 11 FILE NO_: Z-441 1-D (Cont. Mr. Bill Austin addressed the Commission in support of the proposed request. He stated he was a resident of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association. He stated he was not opposed to the proposed request and felt the proposed development would only enhance property values in the area. Mr. John Burnett addressed the Commission indicating he was representing Easter Seals of Arkansas. He stated Easter Seals of Arkansas was no longer opposed to the proposed development since the rear entrance had been removed. Mr. Dick Downing addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Walter Smiley. He stated his client was not going to speak in opposition at this public hearing but did want to reserve the right to speak at a future date. He stated his client wanted to review the site plan once the changes were made (removing the rear entrance) and only at that time would his client make a determination as to support or opposition. Ms. Ruth Bell of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she would like to see in writing all the issues that had been agreed upon. She stated in light of the changes the Commission might wish to defer the item to allow all the agreements to be put in writing. Mr. Lloyd Freedman addressed the Commission on behalf of the Jewish Center. He stated the Jewish Center was concerned with their congregation accessing the site on the Sabbath. He stated his congregation did not drive on the Sabbath and walking to the site was the only option. He stated with the proposed development and the increased traffic on Fairview the congregation could be danger. He requested the item be deferred to allow the two parties additional time to resolve any outstanding issues. Mr. Craig Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the development had changed several times since the original submission. He stated the development had grown from 270,000 square feet to 300,000 square feet and the total site area had increased from 25 acres to 27 acres. He stated the neighborhood was primarily concerned with the increased traffic the shopping center would generate. He stated Pleasant Forest was designed as a collector street and currently exceeded the design capacity of 5,000 cars per day. He stated most of the cars traveled in excess of the posted speed limit. Mr. Williams stated the City had committed to helping to resolve the problem but presently the problem existed. He stated eliminating the rear entrance would not reduce the number of cars on Pleasant Forest. He stated the proposed development was four acres larger than Park Plaza Mall. He questioned why if there was a market for retail the development the approved site from 1994 had not been developed. He stated there were a number of residents in the area that had bought homes and refinanced homes based on City's ordinances and plans. He stated there were also concerns related to the proposed elevations and cross sections provided by the applicant. He stated the neighborhood did not agree with the proposed change to the land use plan. Ms. Julie Hancock addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the applicant was requesting to expand the approved planned development to the south which would directly affect the area. She stated with the removal of the 12 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D Cont. existing vegetation, trees and the hill at Summit Street the neighborhood would be exposed to traffic and noise that was now shielded. She stated at the time she purchased her home she called the City to verify the zoning and land use of the properties around her home. She was told the Future. Land Use Plan indicated Suburban Office for the area, which she felt was a comfortable transition between the intense commercial development along Highway 10. She stated office development would allow for compatibility between the homes and the office users. She stated office uses would not operate until late hours. She stated the commercial development was intended to operate from 5:00 am to 2:00 am leaving only a short period of time there would not be activity on the site. Ms. Hancock questioned the traffic study and the validity of the traffic study. She stated it was her understanding the traffic numbers were generated from summer traffic counts. She also stated when the traffic counts were conducted the new Wal-Mart store was not open. Ms. Hancock stated if she would have known that a commercial development could have been constructed on the proposed site she would have not purchased her home. Ms. Sandi Boen addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she also verified the zoning of the property prior to the purchase of her home. She stated when she purchased her home there were five to six houses on the street and now the subdivision contained 25 homes. She stated she felt with the zoning of the site and the designation of the land use plan as Suburban Office a commercial development would not be allowed on the site. She stated she felt the most likely redevelopment would be office or condo development. Ms. Boen stated Fairview Road was a narrow roadway and did not lend itself to commercial development. She stated she felt as staff the placement of a big box shopping center on the site was not neighborhood friendly. She requested the Commission not rezone the site to allow the shopping center. Mr. Jim Lake addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a member of the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association Board which did vote to oppose the proposed development. He stated traffic was a concern with the area residents. He stated with the increased traffic of a shopping center Rodney Parham Road would need to be widened. He stated the City had upheld the resident's wishes to not four lane Rodney Parham Road in the past. He stated with the development would come increased crime. He stated the increased traffic would also increase the time for emergency response to area residents. He stated the developer should not be allowed to remove Summit Street as proposed. Mr. Lake stated a big center should be not placed on the site. He stated the residential should be protected by the long established plans of the City. Mr. Jim Veach addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the density of the proposed development was a concern of the area residents. He stated the proposed development was located in the wrong place and at the wrong time. He stated the proposed development would compromise the existing homes and property values. 13 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed request. The Commission stated there were significant changes being proposed and they felt the item should be deferred to allow additional time to revise the plans and combine all the information into one narrative and site plan. A motion was made to defer the item to the October 7, 2004 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has submitted a revised plan to including changes presented at the August 26, 2004, Planning Commission Public Hearing. The site plan includes the required street improvements, landscaping, signage and proposed grading. The applicant has indicated development signage located along Cantrell Road, at the Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road entrances. The applicant has indicated signage along Cantrell Road will consist of five (5) sign locations. The applicant has indicated ground mounted monument style signs in three (3) locations; two six feet in height and seventy-two square feet in area and one ten feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. The smaller signs will be located on each of the proposed lots abutting Cantrell Road advertising the businesses located on these lots. The larger sign will be a development sign advertising shops within the center. There are also two signs located on each of the primary entrances to the shopping center both twenty feet in length and six feet in height with lettering not to exceed twenty-four inches. The applicant has indicated these signs will be placed on walls and be an element of the landscaping and contained within the hardscaping of the development. The sign locations on Fairview and Woodland Heights Roads will be a maximum of six feet in height and sixty-four square feet in area. The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication of fifty-five feet from centerline along Cantrell Road. The applicant has also indicated the sidewalk will be placed on the property line to provide additional distance between the pedestrians and traffic on Cantrell Road. The developer will not be required to add a third lane as a part of this development. The applicant has indicated landscaped areas on the proposed site plan. The landscaping includes perimeter landscaping and parking lot landscaping. The applicant has added landscape aisles within the parking lot, seven and one half feet in width, which will be planted with trees and shrubs. The applicant has also indicated parking lot islands to break the expanse of asphalt. The site plan will require additional islands to be added in several locations. The applicant has indicated the Landscape Ordinance will be adhered to upon development. Pedestrian tables have been added to the parking field to allow for connectivity through the site. The tables will allow pedestrians to access various locations through the site and reduce the conflict between pedestrians and motorists. In addition, large areas of 14 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont. hardscaping will be added to the fronts of the buildings to develop an avenue/main street feel within the development. The applicant has increased the landscape buffer adjacent to Cantrell Road to 32 -feet. The previous, plan indicated a landscape buffer 40 -feet from the property line prior to dedication of right-of-way or 25 -feet from the new property line. The site plan includes the placement of a CATA bus stop. The applicant has worked with CATA to develop a suitable location within the development for the bus stop to allow drop offs and layovers. Adding a service drive around the development has redesigned the rear of the site. The applicant has indicated screening will be added along the southern perimeter of the site to screen the adjacent properties. The applicant has indicated evergreen plantings will be added along the southern perimeter and along the southwestern perimeter adjacent to the office development. The site plan includes the placement of evergreen plantings along Fairview Road on the property line to screen the development from the roadway. The proposed landscape area on the southeast perimeter does not meet the minimum landscaping required for the development size. The site plan includes a minimum width of ten feet, adequate to meet the minimum ordinance requirement but when averaged, the site is approximately five hundred square feet short of ordinance requirements. On the southwest corner of the development, the applicant has indicated an eighty -foot by one hundred fifty foot undisturbed buffer and an additional twenty foot by one hundred foot area which will be replanted with evergreen plantings. The applicant has indicated this will assist in screening the loading dock area from Fairview Road. In addition to the vegetation screening, an eight -foot tall brick wall will be added along Fairview Road. The applicant has indicated the wall will follow the grade along Fairview Road ending in the hillside and the wall running to the east will be tapered to soften the ending. The site plan includes the placement of interior landscaping to screen the service bay of Building 1. The landscape strip south of Lots 2 and 3 and the service drive will be enhanced to screen the service bay located on the north side of Building 1. In addition, the applicant has indicated decorative gates will be added to enhance the appearance of the service bay. Building 1 is proposed with storefronts or false store fronts to enhance the character of the building and to break the massing of the structure as viewed from Cantrell Road. The applicant has indicated all. buildings within the development will be constructed with a mixture of brick and stone on the fronts and the rear will be constructed of painted block, one half high concrete block or colored block. The site plan includes the placement of several dumpster locations and a trash compactor location. The applicant has indicated the dumpsters will be screened with evergreen plantings, a wall or wood fence per the zoning ordinance requirements. The 15 FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont. trash compactor will be located near the loading dock of the indicated buildings. The compactor located behind Building 7 (the anchor store) will be located within the truck dock and loaded from the interior of the building. The dumpsters will be serviced between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height of 45 -feet and architectural features such as clock towers. The tower elements are proposed to not exceed twice the total building height. The applicant has indicated one-half street improvements will be added to Fairview Road per the Master Street Plan. The applicant has also indicated the hill on Fairview cannot be lowered due to the location of an existing fiber optic line owned by Southwestern Bell. SBC has stated they are not supportive of the lowering of the hill in this location. The applicant has revised the site plan to remove the "rear entrance" from Fairview Road and to add a traffic signal on Cantrell Road. The applicant has indicated a traffic signal at the "east" entrance to the development as requested by staff. The applicant has indicated four lanes 270 -feet in length to allow for stacking within the development. The applicant has redesigned the drive at Southridge to be a right-in/right-out only intersection and the intersection at Pleasant Ridge will continue to be a full intersection allowing left turns. The applicant is requesting variances from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site and to allow an increased cut along Fairview Road. The applicant is requesting to grade the entire site with the first phase of construction. The applicant is also requesting to grade off-site for the property located on the southeast corner owned by the Catholic Church. The applicant is requesting a sixty foot cut along Fairview Road but according to the engineer, the cut will be more in the range of 53 to 55 feet. The applicant has indicated terraces will be added to the cut slope. The terraces will be placed on fifteen -foot benches with plantings on each of the benches. The phasing plan includes the development of the site with five phases. Lots 2 and 3 are proposed during the first and second phases with the buildings contained on Lot 1 in the second through fifth phases. The building construction for Lot 1 is anticipated as Building 1 during Phase 3, Buildings 4, 5 and 6 during Phase 4 and Buildings 7 — 11 during the fifth phase. The applicant has indicated the final phasing plan will be market driven. The applicant is anticipating to begin construction in the spring of 2005. The applicant has indicated the grading of the site will not be completed until a building permit is secured or a final development plan is submitted. The site plan includes the development of the site with a "horseshoe" -parking parking field, making the development appear to be a more unified development. The applicant has also indicated the development will be constructed in the avenue style design which is an open air life style center design to allow for pedestrian connectivity through the center. The applicant has added enhanced interior landscaping to allow the theme to E FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont. be carried out. The design allows for vehicles and pedestrians to flow through the site with limited conflicts. The site plan includes the breaking of a previously proposed 50,000 square foot building into two 20,000 square foot buildings (Buildings 4 and 5) to help soften the scale of the development. Building 1 has increased in size and been slightly rotated. The applicant has indicated the mechanical equipment will be placed on the ground or on the roof and screened from view with the planting of evergreen shrubs or, if roof mounted, with a parapet wall. Staff's recommendation is forthcoming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (October 7, 2004) During the Planning Commission Public Hearing held August 26, 2004, there were a number of issues raised by Staff and the Commission concerning the proposed Pleasant Ridge Development. In the current agenda, staff provided an update of the issues which had been addressed but did not provide a recommendation for the proposed development. The applicant has tried to meet the technical issues related to the proposed site development as requested by staff. The applicant has increased interior landscaping to give the development a more unified development pattern with a "village" feel. The applicant has indicated the parking field in the "horseshoe pattern" to allow continuity and flow within the center. The applicant has also indicated pedestrian tables to allow for connectivity through the site in the open-air life style center design; limiting the conflicting movements between pedestrians and motorists. The applicant has indicated one-half street improvements will be constructed to Fairview Road, per the Master Street Plan. Additional comments include: • Staff is supportive of the applicant's request for a 60 -foot cut along Fairview Road. The applicant has been working with staff and the indicated cut appears to be more in line with 55 -feet. Staff would recommend the cut be limited to the minimal amount required to construct the development. ■ The applicant has also indicated a desire to grade the entire site of the shopping center during the first phase. Staff would recommend the grading of the site be directly tied to a building permit and that the grading not be allowed until one of the buildings located on proposed Lot 1 is to be constructed. ■ The applicant is requesting to grade property to the south of the site currently owned by the Catholic Church. The applicant has reached an agreement with the church to grade the site as a part of their development but the church does not have any immediate development plans for the site. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request to grade this area with the development of the shopping 17 FILE NO.: Z-441 1-D (Cont. center. Staff feels the advanced grading of this site will not have any impact on any other adjoining properties. Staff feels access should be provided from Woodland Heights Drive to the south of the site. Staff feels the development should provide two direct access points. The primary access point is located along Cantrell Road and, with the placement of the secondary entrance on Woodland Heights Drive, this will aid in directing the traffic movement into the center. Staff feels the entrance should be designed as was previously proposed with a "round -about" at the intersection of the shopping center driveway and Woodland Heights Road. If the rear entrance is approved, staff would recommend signage as was previously proposed; a wall sign with a maximum height of six feet and twenty feet in length. The applicant has indicated the landscaping adjacent to Cantrell Road as 32.0 feet in width. The Highway 10 Design Overlay District typically requires a minimum of 40 -feet of landscaping to include a berm or plantings to screen the parking area. The applicant has not indicated their intention for the landscape treatment. The applicant has indicated additional interior landscaping, with the addition of landscape islands within the proposed parking lot. Since the applicant has increased interior landscaping, staff is supportive of the reduced landscape strip of 32.0 feet adjacent to Cantrell Road. Staff recommends the applicant provide a berm in this area and include additional plantings at one and one half times the normal ordinance requirement to off -set the reduced landscape area. • The applicant has indicated interior landscaping sufficient to meet the percentage requirement but additional landscape islands are required to break-up the parking field. Staff recommends the applicant provide interior landscaped islands sufficient to meet the minimum Landscape Ordinance requirement. The applicant has indicated the southern buffer at approximately 500 square feet less than the typical minimum ordinance requirement. The southwestern buffer is indicated at ten feet, just over the minimum required width of nine feet. The southeastern buffer is indicated at twenty feet. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the southern perimeter with the placement of Leyland Cypress on 15 -foot centers. The applicant has also indicated a six foot tall wood fence will be placed along the southern perimeter of the site adjacent to the office development. Staff is supportive of the applicant's indicated buffering. The applicant has indicated two shopping center identification signs located on retaining walls within the development adjacent to Cantrell Road. The applicant has indicated these signs will be a maximum of twenty feet in length and six feet in height with lettering not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's indicated wall signs. The applicant has indicated the signs will be incorporated into the hardscape of the development. Staff does not feel the additional signage will have any adverse impact on the area. All other indicated signage complies with signage typically allowed per the Zoning Ordinance. 18 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont. Staff is supportive of the proposed concept of the proposed development. Staff would recommend however certain conditions be placed on the development. Staff recommends if the development is approved: ■ There is to be no signage on the rear of the proposed buildings. ■ The rear of the buildings include architectural features to break the massing of the buildings from the adjacent roadways. ■ The service hours be limited to the hours of dumpster service or from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. • The applicant provides gates to eliminate unnecessary traffic/activities near the southwest portion of the site. The gates should be placed near the southeast corner of proposed Building 7 and the western edge of proposed Building 11. • The applicant designs the wall at the southwest corner of the site as an architectural feature, not ending abruptly, and install columns within the wall to add visual interest. • The dumpster enclosures be designed to be an architectural component of the development and constructed of a building material similar to the building materials of the shopping center. • The applicant provide screening of the service bay located on the northern face of proposed Building 1 adequate to screen the area from Cantrell Road. Staff recommends the applicant provide additional plantings along the landscape island on the southern perimeter of proposed Lots 1 and 2 at two times the normal plantings, with both trees and shrubs. Staff feels with the indicated conditions of approval, the potential impacts of the redevelopment of the site as a retail center should be minimized. The applicant has indicated a design of the commercial center with a "Village" and "Neo -traditional' concept. Staff feels if the applicant attempts to address the scale and massing of the development by breaking the rear facades of the buildings with architectural features and incorporates the indicated well -landscaped areas as shown on the proposed site plan, these elements should be positive to the surrounding area and for future customers of the center. Staff feels through the planned development the applicant has tried to assure compatibility with the surrounding area and to address various issues related to the redevelopment of the site. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above and the conditions stated in paragraphs D, E and F of the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 7, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request along with the 19 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont. modifications to the site plan since the August 26, 2004 Public Hearing. Staff stated there were additional conditions being recommended for approval. Mr. Phillip Kaplin addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the applicant was agreeable to all the staff recommendations and conditions. He stated the developer had agreed to remove the rear entrance from the proposed development but if staff felt the rear entrance necessary the applicant was willing to install the rear entrance. He stated the developer was also agreeable to the requirement of a building permit prior to any grading activities on the site. He stated the developer felt the development a quality in -fill development. He stated the desire was to create a quality destination center similar to Highland Park in Dallas or Utica Square in Tulsa. He stated the development was in scale and comparable to the neighborhood. He stated the developer had signed a letter of intent with Sachs to locate a Preserian's retail store on the site. He stated the business would employ 120 persons. He stated the developer was speaking with a number of other tenants but they were not willing to commit until all approvals were obtained. Mr. Craig Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was representing several neighborhood associations in the area including Pleasant Forest, Walton Heights, Westchester, Westbury and Piedmont. Mr. Williams stated the site originally contained 10 acres but the proposal now included an additional 14 acres. Mr. Williams stated the developer "cut the hill" for the original development but never constructed the project. He provided the Commission a photographic view of the cut located on the original approval. Mr. Williams also stated the streets in the area were narrow roadways which did not lend themselves to a great deal of traffic. Mr. Williams stated Cantrell Road was a very congested roadway and Woodland Heights was also well traveled. Mr. Williams provided a photographic view of motorist trying to exit Woodland Heights onto Cantrell Road showing the intersection blocked by motorist on Cantrell Road. Mr. Williams stated Serria Forest was a residential street with no sidewalk in place. Mr. Williams stated there were several school bus stops on the street serving area children. He stated Serria Forest was also the entrance to the neighborhood park and swimming pool. Mr. Williams stated according to the City Traffic Engineer the development would generate 13,000 to 14, 000 cars per day. He stated the traffic count on Cantrell Road were 34,000 cars per day in 2002. He stated traffic studies indicated the current traffic counts were 4,100 cars per day on the neighborhood streets. He stated the indicated traffic counts did not take into consideration future growth on properties currently zoned for office and commercial development. Mr. Williams stated Easter Seals employees were currently parking on both sides of Woodland Heights. He also stated parking for special events and school activities were taking place on Woodland Heights behind the school. FILE NO.: Z -4411-D Cont. Mr. Williams stated Fairview Road was a narrow roadway with limited sight distance. He stated the developer would not improve the sight line as a part of the development due to objections by SBC. He stated he understood one-half street improvements would be installed but the either roadway would not be constructed until development to the west occurred. He questioned the safety of motorist if the view was not improved on the narrow roadway. Mr. Williams stated the proposed development containing 27 acres was four acres larger than Park Plaza Mall. He stated the site contained 300,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. He stated the development was in direct conflict with several city plans. He stated the development did not adhere to the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan, the City's Future Land Use Plan, the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, the Land Alteration Ordinance, the PZD Ordinance. He stated the development was destroying the natural beauty of the area. Mr. Williams stated the development would entail a huge destruction of nature. He stated the Commission should preserve the topography of the area and adhere to the Land Use Plan adopted in 2003. He stated the site was indicated as Suburban Office which would allow for a transition between the single-family homes and the intense commercial development. Mr. Williams requested the Commission deny the request and preserve the neighborhood. Ms. Stacy Fletcher addressed the Commission on behalf of the Rabbi Pinchus Ciment, Executive Director of the Lubavitch of Arkansas. She stated due to a major Jewish festival of Shemini Atzeret and the observance of Judaism in the Orthodox manner the membership was prevented from attending the public hearing. Ms. Fletcher read a letter from Rabbi Pinchus Ciment. She stated the Rabbi was concerned with the potential impact of the development on the adjoining properties. She stated the increased traffic on Fairview Road was a concern since many families walked to the Synagogue with their children on the Saturday and on holidays throughout the year. She stated the there were obvious safety concern for cars and pedestrians and certainly not worth the few extra dollars that might be earned by having such a large facility. She stated a nice quiet office building would enhance the neighborhood and provide the necessary street improvements on Fairview Road and not be a hazard and nuisance to so many neighbors. Ms. Fletcher stated the plan did not reflect an existing curb cut that was currently being used by the Lubavitch of Arkansas, at the intersection. She stated by eliminating Summit Road and with the inevitable closing of Woodland Heights on the southern section to accommodate the Church, Fairview Road would become even more congested. Mr. Ray Rodgers addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the development was a rape and leveling of a hill. He stated no manmade structure could match the beauty of nature. He stated soil erosion and increased traffic would cause a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated Pleasant Forest currently had a great deal of traffic on the roadway and one child had been killed by a motorist. He stated If the intent was for the site to be developed as a commercial 21 FILE NO.: Z-4411-D development the property would have been zoned commercially. He stated commercial development typically created crime. He stated the police department was currently 100 officers understaffed and the police department did not need any additional crime problems. Mr. Rodgers stated the development would contribute to all forms of pollution, promote traffic congestion and destroy property values. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the development would increase traffic on adjacent residential streets. She stated 4000 cars per day would cause a great impact on the area residents. Ms. Bell stated the bottom line was the neighborhood needed assurance from the city for traffic control and calming to protect the existing residential streets. Mr. Brode Morgan addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated he was a resident of Cedar Branch and had lived in the area for 14 years. He stated the site had changed from Multi -family to Suburban Office to now Commercial. He stated he was concerned with the placement of a commercial development with a large scale mall in his backyard. He stated he was also concerned with the removal of Summit Road and the hillside. Mr. John Burnett addressed the Commission in opposition of the request to place the rear entrance within the development. He stated he represented Easter Seals and the understanding was that the rear entrance would not be put in place. He stated he was opposed to staff's recommendation of placing the rear entrance on the site. There was a general discussion concerning the current traffic counts on the existing roadways and the projected traffic counts if the development were approved. Comments also addressed the south entrance to the development and if the entrance should be constructed to allow an alternative access point. Staff stated they felt the secondary access point was necessary to divert traffic from Fairview Road and Woodland Heights Road. Staff stated the traffic would access the site from the south and they felt to direct traffic into a central location would have the least impact on the area. Truck access to the site was questioned. Staff stated they felt truck access would be from Cantrell Road at the two traffic lights. There was a general discussion concerning the drive on Fairview near Pleasant Ridge Road. Staff stated to relocate the drive to Pleasant Ridge Road would not meet the minimum driveway spacing criteria. Mr. White stated the grade could not be achieved in this location. There was a general discussion concerning Woodland Heights Road and the capacity. Staff stated the road was designed to commercial street standards to carry 5000 cars per day. Staff stated the street was not near capacity. Commissioner Lowry asked Ms. Dottie Funk what mitigation efforts could be put in place to enhance the development. She stated in her mind there were none. She stated the development was a nice development if it were located on a flat piece of property. She stated she felt the site was overbuilt since there were so many variances being sought. 22 FILE NO.: Z -4411-D (Cont.) The chair entertained a motion to delete the southern drive from staffs recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. There was a general discussion concerning if the vote was a procedural vote or a vote on the application. It was determined the vote was a procedural vote and a majority of those present was sufficient to act on the item. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to approve the request as amended, including the deletion of the southern drive from staffs recommendation. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. 23