Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4933-B Staff AnalysisNovember 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z -4933-B NAME: Mechanics Lumber Company Long -Form (PCD) • LOCATION: Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway at Kan -is Road DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: MECHANICS LUMBER COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. Box 5151 401 Victory N. Little Rock, AR 72119 Little Rock, AR 72201 371-3456 371-1666 AREA: 8.8 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 630 ZONING: Outside City Limits PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: Rock Creek Valley - 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Mechanics Lumber Company wishes to develop a hardware store and lumber yard at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road. The site was purchased several years ago with the intent of building at such time.as the needs for building materials in the area warranted this expansion. The project will consist of approximately 17,500 sq. ft. of Ace Hardware Store with 32,320 sq. ft. of storage for lumber and other materials. The main building is to be at the center of the property with store buildings completely surrounding the area of activity for the lumber business. Natural buffers will remain on the south, east and west side of the material storage area. No activity will occur outside of the storage building relative to business operations. November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: This PCD is filed for purposes of the construction of a hardware store, lumber yard and creation of two out parcels. The property currently is located outside city limits. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site currently is covered with scrub brush and small trees. The adjacent streets are developed, on the north to city standard and on the southwest to a county standard. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Right-of-way and improvements on Chenal Parkway will be required per Ordinances 14,210 and 15,239. Driveway spacing on Chenal Parkway is also regulated by these ordinances. Engineering will work with the developer and his engineer to determine details of the engineering requirements. Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. D. ISSUESILEGAL The issues to be introduced here are as follows: 1. The Development as proposed does not comply with the curb cut requirement by ordinance for Chenal Parkway (one curb cut for every 300 feet with diamond island at the entrance). 2. The Developer needs to provide a list of uses and floor areas for the two out -parcels. 3. The Developer should present the architectural design sketches for all buildings to the Planning Staff and Planning Commission as required by long -form PCD. E. ANALYSIS 1. The Staff review of this long -form PCD indicates a few design issues. The points made in Items C and D are the primary concerns of the Planning and Engineering Staff. November 20, 1990 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 2 (Continued]_ Mechanics Lumber frontage will be a two lane collector and right-of-way is already in place. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 20, 1990) The application was represented by Eugene Pfeifer and Joe White. There were three objectors in attendance. The Planning Staff presented its recommendation on this matter, the recommendation being approval of the PCD with understanding that the City does not commit to any uses on the two out -parcels until the site plan review occurs by Planning Commission. The Chairman then asked the Planning Staff if there is a need to discuss a letter from Mr. Pfeifer suggesting street improvements on Parkway and Kanis, be exchanged for a five lane minor arterial street along east property line. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, suggested removing the improvement exchange from discussion at the Planning Commission level and send to the Board of Directors for final resolution. However, the Chairman suggested discussing this item at the Planning Commission in order to be able to send Planning Commission recommendation on the street issue to the Board. Jerry Gardner from Public Works explained that Mr. E. Pfeifer's option on the street had not been reviewed and a recommendation had not been made, however, there is a great need for a road in this location. A lengthy discussion of the street improvements versus street construction followed between with several Commissioners and Mr. Gardner. The Chairman then asked Mr. Pfeifer to present his application. Mr. Pfeifer stated that he agreed with the Staff recommendation as presented. The Commission Chairman then asked the first listed objector present, Douglas Williford to present his position. Mr. Williford offered concerns about traffic and compatibility of this use with the neighborhood. He felt that traffic was already severe in the area. November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 2 (Continued) 2. History of the site dates back to December 87 when a "C-3" request was filed for the entire 8.85 ac. After being on the agenda for several months, the item was withdraw from consideration at the request of the applicant. November 1, 1988, a request was before the commission was filed to rezone 8.85 acres to "C-3" and "C-4". There were several people in opposition. Mr. Jacque Alexander presented a petition with 150 names opposed to the commercial rezoning. The application was approved for "C-2" rezoning as amended. February 3, 1989, the applicant requested withdrawal from the Board of Directors Agenda. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this PCD subject to: 1. Meeting all Engineering requirements. 2. Providing list of the uses and floor areas for the two out -parcels. 3. Providing architecture sketches for all buildings. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 8, 1990) Mr. J. White and Gene Pfeifer were present representing the application. The Staff Recommendation was discussed. Mr. White agreed to follow-up on the Staff Comments before the Public Hearing on November 20, 1990. Mr. Jerry Gardner pointed out that number of proposed driveways on the Chenal Parkway frontage needs to be reduced to one. General discussion followed during which one of the Guests - observer seeking more information, asked the Developer if he proposes a natural buffer along Kanis Road, Mr. White has already shown an existing 30' buffer. He also stated that the proposed structure will be closed from outside with only one gate opening to the inside lumber, and storage yard. The second question from Guest was whether the 30' buffer is included in Kanis Road right-of-way. Mr. Wayne Sherrill from Traffic Department added that Kanis Road on the November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 2 (Continued The Chairman then recognized the next listed objector present, Mr. Ron Hopper. Mr. Hopper stated that he does not oppose the commercial development, but he opposes the lumber yard. The Chair then asked the Planning Staff to present a revised site plan to Mr. Hopper and Mr. Williford. The Planning Staff explained that the number of curb cuts had been reduced to one and the out -parcel site plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission before any of the out -parcels be developed. Commissioner Nicholson suggested that this item be deferred until the agreement between the developer and the Staff about street improvements be accomplished. The Chair then asked Mr. Pfeifer to consider deferral. Mr. Pfeifer suggested to proceed with the application without considering street improvements. The Chairman stated that the Commission would like to also make recommendations on the street improvements issue to the Board of Directors. A lengthy discussion of the street improvements versus a new street construction followed involving several Commissioners and Mr. Pfeifer. The Chairman then recognized another person present who desired to offer comments in objection. This person was Jacque Alexander. Ms. Alexander offered additional comments concerning traffic problems, the need for high quality development and objected to the commercial development at this location. Commissioner Oleson stated that the Commission also received a letter from Ms. Nell Ambrose in opposition to the commercial development. The Chairman then called the question to approve this application as modified per revised site plan with several conditions. 1. No committment on the future use for two out -parcels. 2. No curb -cuts for out -parcels from Chenal Parkway. 3. The Commission does not make any recommendation on street improvements at this time. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 abstention and 2 absent.