Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5098-A Staff AnalysisNovember 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS I_tem No 17 Name: Location: Dillard's Site Plan Review (Z -5098-A) North of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Cantrell Road 0wn_e_r_(1Ap.pl_i.,.cant: Di I lard's/Flake and Company, Ron Tabor Pro osal: To construct a four to six story office building (112,000 square feet to 168,000 square feet) and 500 initial parking spaces (57 additional future spaces) on 17.5 acres of land (13.5 are buildable) that is zoned "R-5," 110-3," "1-2" and "C-3" (to be rezoned to "0-2"). ANALYSIS The proposed plan meets ordinance requirements with regards to height, site size and parking. The approval of the site plan is, however, contingent upon the applicant: closing all streets and alleys within the site; rezoning the site to "0-2"; and filing a one -lot final plat to remove all existing lot lines and to dedicate any necessary right-of- way and to establish the appropriate building lines. The site plan also needs to be revised to include: .4-tT dimensions of all proposed structures (with setbacks), access drives and interior drives; d,>J�a 6 foot screening fence along the entire eastern property line to screen the parking area from the adjacent multifamily structure; 4(,2}—a 25 foot landscape buffer along the entire frontage of Cantrell Road; 4 -4 -t -changing note no. 1 on the site plan to show four to six story office building (112,00 square feet to 168,000 square feet); and k-Frl' location of the future parking deck. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS The proposed traffic signal is desired but will have to meet warrants prior to its installation. This is an Arkansas Highway Department policy. The private street that intersects Cantrell Road on the west end of this tract should be a dedicated public right-of-way for at least 1 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No;_.. 17 (Continued_) 150 feet north of Cantrell Road. The geometric design at the main entrance (easternmost) will need to be corrected to provide an adequate acceleration lane. The entrance to the property immediately west of the westernmost drive (Southland Corporation) must be redesigned to provide for sufficient left -turn storage lane for southbound traffic. The existing geometrics on this intersection are unacceptable. The site will also require conformance to Storm Water Detention and Excavation Ordinance requirements. STAFFRECOMMENDATION Approval provided: (1) the property is properly rezoned and all streets and alleys are closed as necessary; (2) a one - lot final plat is filed as previously outlined; (3) the applicant submits a revised site plan as outlined in the Analysis items 1 through 5; and (4) the applicant agrees to comply with City Engineering requirements as previously outlined. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and generally agreed to comply with Staff recommendations. There was some confusion as to the meaning of the City Engineer's comment regarding the easternmost drive. The applicant stated that he would meet with the City Engineer to clarify the issue. The Staff stated that an additional 15 feet of right-of-way will need to be dedicated to meet Master Street Plan requirements on Cantrell Road and that the sign proposed on the site plan would be required to meet the City's Sign Ordinance requirements. The applicant also stated that they were going to add the Southland property (located adjacent to the west) to the site and that the site plan was not yet exactly fixed. The Staff stated that once all the major elements have been pinned down on the site plan, any future changes could possibly handled at the Staff level. Finally, the Staff stated that any approval of adjacent property to the site plan would be subject to its being rezoned "0-2." The Wastewater Utility stated that all easements will remain until relocations are complete. 2 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item. No. 17 (Continued ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON _ D' S S I.;TE PLAN REV I EW, NOVEMBER 1.5_, 1 988 The Staff has received a letter, a traffic study, and a revised site pian. The revised site plan does not, however, address all the specific design concerns as previously outlined. It has become clear that the applicant is attempting to tie down the specific access plan through a "conceptual" site plan. Although the approach is somewhat unorthodox, the Staff feels that can succeed. The Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the revised "conceptual" plan provided: ,K'Y—the applicant agrees to comply with all detention, excavation, landscape, sign and zoning ordinance requirements; dam the property is successfully rezoned; Lt -al all streets and alleys are successfully closed; (4) a one lot final plat is filed dedicating the necessary right- of -way as outlined in the analysis section of the agenda„— ,3'T the City Engineer is satisfied with the revised street��� and access plan; and LS,&<the property located to the west is included in the future site plan. Once the applicant has agreed to and completed all the outlined procedures, the Staff will review the "final” site plan for specific compliance. If, for any reason, the Staff and the applicant cannot reach complete agreement, the project will be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the addendum to the Staff's recommendation. Carole and Phillip McCorkle of 129 Riverside Drive were present and objected to the project, primarily due to the historical significance that would be lost as a result of this project. They also objected to a potentially dangerous access problem that would exist. The Commission became concerned about the implication of what the Staff was recommending regarding an approval of a "conceptual" site plan. They also felt that an approval in this manner might be precedent setting and perceived as "special dispensation." A lengthy discussion ensued. A mo -tion was made to approve the revised site plan as submitted and as recommended by the Staff in its "Addendum to the Staff's Recommendations" Items 1 through 6 subject to the applicant and Staff bring the site plan back 3 SURD I V I S I ON S Item No. 17,—(.Cont. f nued-L to the Comml ssion.for further review if the site plan is modified in such a way as not to meet the requirements as outlinLd in Section 36-132 of the Code of Ordinances. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and , 1 absent. 4 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 Name: Location: Dillard's Site Plan Review (Z -5098-A) North of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Cantrell Road Owner/Apnli.,cant.: Dillard's/Flake and Company, Ron Tabor Propos? I._: To construct a four to six story office building (112,000 square feet to 168,000 square feet) and 500 initial parking spaces (57 additional future spaces) on 17.5 acres of land (13.5 are buildable) that is zoned "R-5," 110-3," 111-2" and "C-3" (to be rezoned to "0-2"). ANALYSIS _ The proposed plan meets ordinance requirements with regards to height, site size and parking. The approval of the site plan is, however, contingent upon the applicant: closing all streets and alleys within the site; rezoning the site to "0-2"; and filing a one -lot final plat to remove all existing lot lines and to dedicate any necessary right-of- way and to establish the appropriate building lines. The site plan also needs to be revised to include: (1) dimensions of all proposed structures (with setbacks), access drives and interior drives; (2) a 6 foot screening fence along the entire eastern property line to screen the parking area from the adjacent multifamily structure; (3) a 25 foot landscape buffer along the entire frontage of Cantrell Road; (4) changing note no. 1 on the site plan to show four to six story office building (112,00 square feet to 168,000 square feet); and (5) location of the future parking deck. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS The proposed traffic signal is desired but will have to meet warrants prior to its installation. This is an Arkansas Highway Department policy. The private street that intersects Cantrell Road on the west end of this tract should be a dedicated public right-of-way for at least 1 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 (Continued.) 150 feet north of Cantrell Road. The geometric design at the main entrance (easternmost) will need to be corrected to provide an adequate acceleration lane. The entrance to the property immediately west of the westernmost drive (Southland Corporation) must be redesigned to provide for sufficient left -turn storage lane for southbound traffic. The existing geometrics on this intersection are unacceptable. The site will also require conformance to Storm Water Detention and Excavation Ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval provided: (1) the property is properly rezoned and all streets and alleys are closed as necessary; (2) a one - lot final plat is filed as previously outlined; (3) the applicant submits a revised site plan as outlined in the Analysis items 1 through 5; and (4) the applicant agrees to comply with City Engineering requirements as previously outlined. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and generally agreed to comply with Staff recommendations. There was some confusion as to the meaning of the City Engineer's comment regarding the easternmost drive. The applicant stated that he would meet with the City Engineer to clarify the issue. The Staff stated that an additional 15 feet of right-of-way will need to be dedicated to meet Master Street Plan requirements on Cantrell Road and that the sign proposed on the site plan would be required to meet the City's Sign Ordinance reriirements. The applicant also stated that they were going io add the Southland property (located adjacent to the west) to the site and that the site plan was not yet exactly fixed. The Staff stated that once all the major elements have been pinned down on the site plan, any future changes could possibly handled at the Staff level. Finally, the Staff stated that any approval of adjacent property to the site pian would be, subject to its being rezoned "0-2." The Wastewater Utility Stated that all easements will remain until relocations are complete. 2 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 (Continued, ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON DILLARD'S SITE„P.LAN REVI.EW,.NOVEMBER 15, 1988 The Staff has received a letter, a traffic study, and a revised site plan. The revised site plan does not, however, address all the specific design concerns as previously outlined. It has become clear that the applicant is attempting to tie down the specific access plan through a "conceptual” site plan. Although the approach is somewhat unorthodox, the Staff feels that can succeed. The Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the revised "conceptual" plan provided: (1) the applicant agrees to comply with all detention, excavation, landscape, sign and zoning ordinance requirements; (2) the property is successfully rezoned; (3) all streets and alleys are successfully closed; (4) a one lot final plat is filed dedicating the necessary right- of-way as outlined in the analysis section of the agenda; (5) the City Engineer is satisfied with the revised street and access plan; and (6) the property located to the west•is included in the future site plan. Once the applicant has agreed to and completed all the outlined procedures, the Staff will review the "final" site plan for specific compliance. If, for any reason, the Staff and the applicant cannot reach complete agreement, the project will be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the addendum to the Staff's recommendation. Carole and Phillip McCorkle of 129 Riverside Drive were present and objected to the project, primarily due to the historical significance that would be lost as a result of this project. They also objected to a potentially dangerous access problem that would exist. The Commission became concerned about the implication of what the Staff was recommending regarding an approval of a "conceptual" site plan. They also felt that an approval in this manner might be precedent setting and perceived as "special dispensation." A lengthy discussion ensued. A motion was made to approve the revised site plan as submitted and as recommended by the Staff in its "Addendum to the Staff's Recommendations" Items 1 through 6 subject to the applicant and Staff bring the site plan back 3 November 15, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. .(Con t i need) to the Commission for further review if the site plan is modified in such a way as not to m-eet the requirements as outlined in Section 36-132 of the Code of Ordinances. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. :9