Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4484-B-1 Staff AnalysisOctober 4, 2001 ITEM NO.: F NAME: Republic Industries - Revised PCD LOCATION: 9812 Interstate 30 DEVELOPER: Republic Industries, Inc. 9812 I-30 Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: Approximately 0.75 acre FT. NEW STREET: 0 ENGINEER: None ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: FILE NO.: Z -4484-B NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 Office/Showroom with warehouse Office/Showroom with warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On October 1, 1985 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 14,960 rezoning the property at 9812 I-30 from R-2 to PCD for C-3 and I-2 permitted uses. The approved site plan included the building as it currently exists (recent building addition) and a paved parking area between the building and the I-30 frontage road. Two (2) access points were approved from the frontage road. To date, the paved parking area as shown on the approved site plan has not been constructed and the two (2) drives from the frontage road have not been established. Vehicles can currently access the site anywhere along the existing gravel vehicular use area. The approved site plan also showed a small interior October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4484-B landscape island within the parking area. Based on the fact that the building addition was constructed and the paved parking and landscaping was not provided, the property is currently under enforcement. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests to revise the previously approved PCD site plan only with respect to the vehicular use area between the existing building and the I-30 frontage road. The applicant notes that it is their intention to pave the vehicular use area. However, the applicant wishes not to stripe the parking area, install the small landscape island or establish interior curbing within the vehicular use " area. The applicant notes that if interior landscaping and curbing is constructed, it will inhibit semi truck maneuvering within the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing commercial building on the property, with a gravel vehicular use area between the building and Interstate 30. There is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses to the east and west along I-30 and to the south across I-30. There is a warehouse (Hank's Furniture) on the property immediately to the north, with R-2 zoned property further north. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. The Town and Country and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 2. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 3. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 4. Driveway shall be one-way in and out only. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comment. 2 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4484-B ARKLA: No Comment received. Southwestern Bell: No Comment. Water: A development fee based on the size of connection will apply in addition to normal charges. On-site fire protection may be required. Fire Department: No Comment. County Planning: No Comment received. CATA: Project site is not located on a dedicated bus v route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs - West Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Commercial and Industrial for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development for modification of the vehicular use area. A land use plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: A Neighborhood Action Plan is under development for this area. The Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee has been notified of this action. Landsca a Issues: A small amount of landscaping is required. Landscaped areas must be protected from vehicular traffic with curbing. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 10, 2001) Jerry Larkowski and Jeff Butner were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the revised PCD. Staff noted that a full-size revised site plan needed to be submitted showing the boundaries of the proposed paving. There was a brief discussion regarding the property and the existing conditions. Staff noted that the applicant would 3 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4484-B need to obtain a franchise -type approval from the State, based on the fact that a portion of the vehicular use area is in the I-30 right-of-way. The Committee suggested deferring the application to allow the applicant time to meet with the State Highway Department and explore the franchise procedure. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, noted that a small amount of landscaping would be required. Staff suggested relocating the small landscape island as was shown on the previously approved site plan to another area of the site. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the issue to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph G., a portion of the vehicular use area between the existing building and the I-30 frontage road is located in the I-30 right-of-way. The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 16, 2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the July 12, 2001 Planning Commission agenda. This will allow the applicant time to meet with the State Highway Department and discuss a franchise -type agreement for this vehicular use area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the application be deferred to the July 12, 2001 Planning Commission agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 31, 2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on May 16, 2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the July 12, 2001 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 12, 2001 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont. STAFF UPDATE: FILE NO.: Z -4484-B The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 21, 2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the August 23, 2001 agenda. The applicant is continuing to work out details with the State Highway Department. Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 12, 2001) J Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on June 21, 2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the August 23, 2001 agenda. Staff supported the deferral as requested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 23, 2001 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: (AUGUST 8, 2001) The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on August 1, 2001. The revised plan was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on August 2, 2001. The State Highway Department has refused to allow the applicant to construct any parking or landscaping within the I-30 right- of-way. Therefore, the applicant has shown all of the parking and landscaping within the property boundary. The revised site plan shows a total of 14 parking spaces. The ordinance would typically require 16 spaces. Staff supports the parking plan as proposed, as there is no space on the site to put any additional parking. The revised plan also shows two (2) one-way access points from the I-30 access road. There is a mountable paved island with curb and gutter between the two (2) drives. The applicant has also shown several areas proposed for additional landscape plantings, as noted on the attached site plan. Staff has reviewed the revised plan and notes that the 5 October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4484-B landscaping proposed will satisfy ordinance requirements. Otherwise, there should be no outstanding issues associated with the Revised PCD site plan. Staff feels that the applicant has done a good job in revising the site plan given the size constraints associated with this property. Based on the fact that the Revised PCD request was initiated by an enforcement action, staff feels that the paving (including curb and gutter) and striping of the parking area and installation of the new landscaping should be completed within 90 days of the Board of Directors' approval of this application. Normally with a revised PZD the applicant has three (3) years to have the final plan approved and start construction. v STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Revised PCD subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2.The construction of the paved parking area (including curb, gutter and striping) and the installation of the new landscaping must be completed within 90 days of the date the Board of Directors approves this application. 3.The dumpster must be screened on three (3) sides with an eight (8) foot high opaque fence or wall. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 23, 2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that this item be deferred to the October 4, 2001 agenda. The applicant failed to notify the property owners (within 200 feet) of the public hearing. Staff supported the deferral as requested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the October 4, 2001 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. C October 4, 2001 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; F (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: FILE NO.: Z -4484-B (OCTOBER 4, 2001) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A letter of support had been received from Janet Berry, president of SWLR UP. Staff informed the Commission that the required notices had been sent as specified in the Commission's bylaws. Staff recommended approval of the item subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2absent. 7