Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4997-C Staff AnalysisAugust 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -4997-B NAME: BC Auto Plaza Revised PCD LOCATION: Southwest corner of Chenal Parkway at Gamble Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Bale Chevrolet Company Burt Taggart Architects 2nd & Broadway 4500 Burrow Drive Little Rock, AR No. Little Rock, AR 758-7443 AREA: 9.24 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD 2, Revised PROPOSED USES: Auto dealership PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: This applicant proposes a revision of the original PCD application. The revision proposes to reorient the two principal structures on the property in a northeasterly direction as opposed to the north/south orientation on the original approval. The basic design will remain the same. The access points onto the parkway and Gamble Road will remain the same. There are proposed changes within the original buffer area along West Markham Street and some change in the format of automobile display. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This application proposes to revise the existing Planned Commercial District to reorient the two buildings. The buildings will then face northwesterly toward the parkway as opposed to the original design which faced to the north. The redesign also accommodates the expansion proposal as a PCD on to properties lying to the west. r August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 11 {Continued) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is rather rugged with some changes having been made since the original construction of the parkway. There are areas of exposed earth, existing natural trees and some possible drainage problems. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Widen Chenal Parkway 20'61° and construct sidewalks along the entire parkway frontage per earlier Planning Commission commitment. Improve Gamble Road to a collector standard. Provide Stormwater Detention. Conform to the Excavation Ordinance. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: This plan was previously approved by the Planning Commission and the City Board, and a PCD is in place at this time. The PCD of record permits the business intended by this application with a somewhat different layout of structures and parking. The PCD in place modified the approved land use plan for this area which called for an office strip along West Markham Street to the rear of the site. That office strip served as a buffering element to the adjacent residential and church activity lying on the south. The plan proposed at this time would modify that significantly. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff view of this proposal is that it is an attempt to expand the existin'g auto related commercial intrusion onto the parkway. This layout is principally designed to accommodate the additional acreage to the west which would take access through this property. The current PCD of record does not require a redesign to put this use on the property. The neighborhood plan for this area, we feel, has been impacted significantly by the last several commercial developments that have been approved. We feel that further changes in the plan are entirely inappropriate. This activity is still a "C-4" use, even though it is couched in terms of a PCD with special design considerations. The physical element on the ground, to the passerby, will be two commercial buildings with a large area of asphalt covered by cars. If this plan is approved, it should be pointed out for the record that August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 11 (Continued) a commitment was made to the City of Little Rock on the occasion of the approval of the first PCD to limit access onto the parkway. It was agreed that a median would be constructed in the center of the parkway, thereby eliminating left turns from this site at some point. Upon initiation of construction of this project, the widening of the parkway and any additional dedication will be required at that time as well as participation in the median. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to further develop the application, the information provided, and our position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 27, 1989) The application was represented. A lengthy discussion was held, primarily discussing the effects of this site plan layout upon the original site plan. The Committee questioned Staff as to the amount of change from the old plan to this pian. Staff clarified its position on this relative to the site planning and indicated that its Position was more of land use than it was of design; that there were good aspects of this layout as much as the original. A brief discussion of the relationship between this PCD and Item No. 12 dealing with the new auto dealership adjacent on the west resulted in favorable comment from the Committee concerning access design relationships to the adjacent properties and the effect on the area in general. The discussion then moved to the subject of placement of the various types of parking areas, specifically the location of those areas for the parking of vehicles being serviced and/or repaired and the body shop. It was pointed out by the applicant that the body shop would not be located on this site, nor would there be one on the new auto dealership on the site to the west. Those activities would be at another location in the downtown area. The applicant was requested to look at the areas that will be utilized for the different types of parking - customer, service, repair and new car display - and identify those on the drawing. A request was also made for detailing of the parking display pads which were identified as a small paved circular area somewhat raised from the adjacent grade. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 11 (Continued) The last item for discussion was a request of the applicant for detailing of the building and a lighting plan for the site. The applicant indicated that specifics could be provided on the structures and a lighting plan submitted. There being no further items of discussion, this item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The Planning Commission briefly discussed this application. There were no objectors. The Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda for approval. Subject to: (1) Staff meeting with developer to agree upon a landscaping, sign and lighting plan (the landscaping is too sparse); and (2) a plan for the elimination of the outdoor sound system. Subject to resolution of issues outlined in Staff Comments, a motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. R August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -3188-A NAME: Bale Chevrolet Auto Plaza No. 2 - PCD Short -form LOCATION: Chenal Parkway south side 800 ft. west of Gamble Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Bale Chevrolet Company Burt Taggart Architects 2nd & Broadway 4500 Burrow Drive Little Rock, AR No. Little Rock, AR 758-7443 AREA: 4.3 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" to PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Auto dealership This application has been submitted in the form of an expansion of the existing BC Auto Plaza originally approved immediately to the east. The site plan, as designed, will operate in conjunction with the display and circulation patterns of the original approval. There will be complete and open flow of traffic between these two sites thereby eliminating the need for additional curb cuts onto any of the several adjacent streets. The existing curb cuts on Gamble and the parkway will suffice to serve this property. The proposal consists of a single building as an automobile dealership separate and apart from the Chevrolet dealership on the adjacent property to the east. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This application consists of a proposal to locate a new car dealership on a tract of land a little more than four acres in area as an adjunct to the Bale Chevrolet development immediately to the east. Access would be taken through the Bale Chevrolet site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is rather rugged with some changes having been made since the original construction of the parkway. There are areas of exposed earth, existing natural trees and some possible drainage problems. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Widen Chenal Parkway and construct sidewalks along the entire parkway frontage. Provide Stormwater Detention. Conform to Excavation Ordinance. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The design of the site plan is adequate to the site and this proposal. However, the significant issue attached to this filing is nonconformity with the adopted land use plan for the area. There are a number of detail items on the site plan which require some resolution. These are as follows: 1. How many cars can be parked for customer and display. 2. Dimension details should be provided on the car pads on the perimeter. 3. The storage area for autos awaiting service or repair should be indicated. 4. Details of landscaping treatment in the buffer along West Markham and the parkway should be shown. 5. The height of the building should be indicated. ` 6. Signage should be designed to the Sign Code standards and not introduced for approval in this plan. 7. A lighting scheme for the building and parking areas should be provided. 8. Structural description should be provided. August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item fV i n u e d 9. The stalls for parking in the southwest corner of the parking lot without defined curb or boundary should be clarified. 10. Dimension the east building corner. 11. Define the showroom construction, whether this is open canopy, glassed in area, etc. 12. Define use boundary for this dealership separate from #1. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff view of this proposal is that the design is adequate for the use and the size property indicated. However, we feel the proposal is located inappropriately. We feel that the introduction of another automobile dealership adjacent to the existing approved PCD would encourage further stripping out of the parkway with "C-4" activities. Staff feels that the Chenal Parkway is one of the few scenic corridors in and out of the City of Little Rock and should be protected against the usual types of strip commercial development. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff reserves its recommendation on this item in order to further develop the application, the information provided, and our position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 27, 1989) The applicant was present on this application. The Subdivision Committee discussed this item in conjunction with Item No. 11 on the agenda. Therefore, the commentary included in their record on Item No. 11 applies to this matter. PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: (August 8 1 989 ) The Planning Commission briefly discussed this application in conjunction with Item No. 11 on the agenda. The Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the consent agenda for approval subject to: (1) Staff meeting with the developer to agree upon a landscaping, sign August 8, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 12 (Continued) and lighting plan (the landscaping is too sparse); and1 a plan for elimination of the outdoor sound system. ( ) Subject to the resolution of issues outlined above, a motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent.