Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5139 Staff AnalysisJanuary 24, 1989 Item No. 9 -- Z-5139 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Various Owners Don Chambers Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road Rezone from 11R-21' to "C-3" Commercial center 10.18 acres Existing Use: Vacant and residential SURROUNDING LAND USE A 7 ZONING: North - Single f ---Ii South - Vacant and East - Single farm and "C-3" West - Vacant, zon STAFF ANALYSIS: y, zoned "R-2" ingle family, zoned "R-2" � and commercial, zoned "R-2" f' R- 2" Two policy documents pertain to this site. One is the Highway 10 Plan which designates this property as part of a transition zone. The other is the report pending before the Board of Directors entitled "Policies for Development in the Highway 10 and Rock Creek Corridors". This report contains a recommended policy reading as follows: "Additional commercial zoning beyond that shown on land use plans may be allowed at existing commercial nodes if increased designed requirements are met. The additional design requirements would include buffer areas, setbacks, height limitations, minimum site sizes, floor area ratios and access controls. Designation of a specific use through the PUD process would be desirable where the additional commercial zoning is adjacent to existing residential developments". The subject property does represent the expansion of a commercial node and therefore could be considered in light of the recommended policy. Staff suggests that the following standards be considered in evaluating this proposed rezoning as well as other proposed node expansions: 1. A Planned Unit Development application should be required for any expansion of a node. January 24, 1989 Item No. 9 (Continued) 2. At least a 50 foot undisturbed or replanted buffer should be provided adjacent to existing single family residential uses, the exact distance of the buffer to depend on the thickness of existing tree cover and topographic factors. 3. The maximum floor area ratio for a commercial expansion should be 0.15. 4. Landscaping of parking lots should be three times that required by the Landscape Ordinance. 5. A 40 foot landscape strip should be provided along and parallel to all street property lines; or landscaped earth berms, 4 fe-t high, should be provided along streets where part: ng adjoins the streets. Shrubs and smaller trees shou 9 be planted on the berms, and the berm area should b: at least 25 feet in width. 6. Parking should be d,signed in concert with the building and landscaping, so as to provide for a balance of all elements and avoid large unbroken paved surfaces. Parking should not be allowed in buffer areas, and off- street parking should be prohibited. 7. A lighting plan should be required indicating the location, size, type and number of all external lighting systems. All lighting should be designed so as to cast illumination only onto the site served, and the lighting should be shielded from view of neighboring residential lots. 8. All development proposals should be limited to street access as set forth in the Commercial and Office Subdivision Plat Requirements of the Little Rock Subdivision Regulations. Higher standards for place- ment or design should be imposed where specifically identified as a need by the Traffic Engineer. 9. In every instance, site and structure planning should incorporate design concepts compatible with the neighborhood. This should be construed to mean that building style, wall finish, display windows, interior lighting, dumpsters and loading facilities will be of a nature that creates the least contrast, glare and noise to be compatible with nearby residential areas. The Planning Commission should exercise architectural review. January 24, 1989 Item No. 9 (Continued) 10. Truck/service areas and trash containers should not be visible from adjacent residential areas or be visible from any street. Such areas should be screened from view. They should not be located in proximity to residential uses (including multi -family uses) so that noise and view will not be problems. 11. A minimum 100 foot setback of commercial structures should be required from arterial rights-of-way. 12. A maximum building height of 35 feet should be permitted, with the building height being measured to the highest point of building elevation. If the site adjoins existing single family residential uses, the maximum building height should be 25 feet. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Taylor Loop Road should have a total of 45 feet dedicated from center line in order to meet minor arterial standards which call for a total right-of-way of 90 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This policy issue (commercial node expansion) is being considered by the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989) The applicant, David Jones, was present. There were between 150-200 interested persons in attendance. (The registration cards indicated 13 objectors and 15 supporters of the commercial rezoning). Gary Greeson, Planning Director, reviewed the Staff's position of no recommendation and answered several questions. David Jones then spoke and said he was acting as agent for Vogel Realty, the proposed developer. Mr. Jones told the Commission that the Staff's no recommendation was significant and that the area was in transition. He went on to discuss the future of Highway 10, a five -lane roadway, and that it was one of the strongest growth corridors in Little Rock. Mr. Jones then gave some history of the Highway 10 Plan and indicated some willingness to amend the request to "C-2." He made some comments about the proposed January 24, 1989 Item No. 9 (Continued) and presented a map of the Highway 10 Plan area. He described the planning process for Highway 10 which included a study committee and restricting commercial zoning to the major intersections. Mr. Jones discussed the transition zone concept and reviewed the commercial nodes along Highway 10 at Chenal Parkway, the Johnson Ranch PUD, and East Taylor Loop Road. He said the plan had been stagnating growth and it should not force development away. Mr. Jones reminded the Commission that a plan was just that, a guide and not zoning. Evelyn Thomas of the Thomas Park Subdivision submitted a petition with 542 signatures in support of the commercial rezoning. Ms. Thomas described the Thomas Park Subdivision and said she had been on the Highway 10 Study Committee. She then discussed the plan which put in the transition zones to act as buffers and to allow quality PUD's. Ms. Thomas made some additional comments and recommended approval of the rezoning. At this point, a number of persons (40-50) stood in support of the proposed commercial rezoning. David Jones addressed the Commission again and discussed the Hinson Road connection which he said will provide access to Highway 10 for a number of subdivisions in the Pleasant Valley area. He went on to say that once the connection is completed, the East Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10 intersection will be one of the busiest and the most important commercial corner in the area. Bill Dodge, a real estate consultant for Safeway, spoke and said Safeway always tried to locate at a major intersection and that you could not ask for a better situation than East Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10. Mr. Dodge said that Safeway moved their plans from Rodney Parham because of future growth demands and then described reasons for selecting this specific location. Mike Marcu-ssen with Safeway Stores presented some numbers and facts about Safeway. He said there were 13 stores in the central Arkansas area that provided 1,268 jobs with a payroll of $19 million dollars. Mr. Marcussen said Safeway will build the store if the zoning goes through and employ up to 80 people with 60 being full time positions. Wes Lowder, Robin Borne' and Don Chambers of the Mehlburger Engineering firm then review various aspects of the proposed site plan. Mr. Lowder described the property in question and the necessary site work for the development. Mr. Lowder January 24, 1989 Item No. 9 (Continued) said the buffer and fence would screen the residences to the south and the landscaping conforms to the recommended enhanced design criteria. Mr. Borne' said that the plans have not been completed but they would maintain the residential character of the area. Mr. Chambers said the buffer area made up 25% of the total land and the transition zone guidelines were used in designing the site plan. Mr. Chambers also said that access exceeded the City's requirements. There was discussion about why a PCD was not being utilized. Mr. Lowder said there was still some uncertainties associated with the project. David Jones also said that Safeway had some concerns with potential use restrictions that could be imposed with the PCD. Mr. Lowder added some :omments about the proposed building. He said it would be 20 feet higher than the residences and very little of the stricture would be visible from the south. David Jones said he was no trying to change the plan because the site was adjacint to a commercial node. He pointed out to the Commission that everything was being done to ensure that the project would have a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. The following persons spoke in favor of the rezoning: Randy Alexander, Beverly Ashcraft, Bonnie Cargile, Ed Cargile, George Dyer, Larry Grace, Mindy Green, David McMullan, Betty Saugey, Tommy Tucker and Tommy Tucker, Jr. The supporters provided a number of reasons for endorsing the request, including convenience of having a Safeway Store; rather have commercial than office or multi -family; a positive step for the area; a quality project; no demand for office land; provide some job opportunities; a logical location for a commercial development, being at a major intersection; Highway 10 was not a scenic corridor in the immediate vicinity; and the plan needed to have some flexibility. The following persons spoke against the commercial rezoning: Melissa Carroll, Donald Glowen, Dennis Smith, Jack Larrison, Ruth Bell, Marie Smoots, Ron Peace and Rick Russell. Melissa Carroll told the Planning Commission that the opponents were still circulating petitions and they will be presented to the Board of Directors on February 7, 1989. January 24, 1989 Item No. 9 (Continued) Points made by the objectors included: allow the plan to work; street and traffic problems; the plan needed to be maintained; setting an undesirable precedent for commercial zoning in the transition zone; pressure for additional rezonings will increase; no demand for more commercial zoning; the Plan was only two and one-half years old and needed more time; moved to the area because of the Highway 10 Plan; rezoning was a violation of the Plan; needed to protect the residential investments; and the commercial rezoning could have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Wendell Griffen, an attorney retained by the Westchester Subdivision, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Griffen said the rezoning should be resisted because of the Plan and elaborated on a number of reasons for denying the request. He said that the rezoning violated the Plan and allowing a commercial strip will ruin the scenic quality of Highway 10 and the neighborhood. Mr. Griffen pointed out to the Commission that less than ten acres in the area had been developed for commercial use and the Plan was projected to the year 2005. He reminded the Commission that the Plan was adopted in 1986 and questioned whether it was reasonable to determine if the Plan had failed after only two and on -half years. Mr. Griffen said the property in question was planned for the transition zone even though it was close to a major intersection, and development at commercial nodes would be discouraged if the site was rezoned. Mr. Griffen then discussed the sale of the Candlewood property and submitted some materials for the record including Bankruptcy Court proceedings and County deed records. He said the site was sold to Vogel Realty who sold it to another party in a short period of time. He then concluded by saying that there was no hardship and asked the Commission to enforce the Plan by denying the commercial rezoning. David Jones responded to Mr. Griffen's comments about the Candlewood sale and said a feasibility study determined that the Candlewood property was inappropriate for a Safeway store. Mr. Jones then amended the request to "C-2" and said the site plan would conform to the enhanced design standards. He also offered to attach approval of the site plan as a condition of the rezoning. Bobby Allison, an objector from the Thomas Park Subdivision, then spoke. He said he moved to the area with the thought that the Plan would be maintained and asked the Commission to deny the commercial rezoning. : January 24, 1989 I tem No . 9 Z-5139 (Continued)____ Gene Pfeifer also objected to the rezoning and said the Plan needed to be maintained. Mr. Pfeifer told the Commission that there was more profit in rezoning the transition zone area and breaking the Plan. Additional comments were then made by Wendell Griffen, David Jones, Bill Rector, Jerilyn Nicholson, Walter Riddick and John Schlereth'. Mr. Griffen said that everybody should live within the established rules and presented some photographs of other properties listed by Vogel Realty. Mr. Jones said the rezoning was not breaking the Plan and asked for a vote on the "C-2" request. Commissioner Schlereth said the primary issue was whether to allow the expansion of existing commercial nodes for quality development. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-2" as amended, conditioned upon the site plan being approved by the Planning Commission. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson). The "C-2" rezoning was approved. Z-5139 Owner: Various Owners Applicant: Don Chambers Location: Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-3" Purpose: Commercial center Size: 10.18 acres Existing Use: Vacant and residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: No-rth - Single family, zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and single family, zoned "R-2" East - Single family and commercial, zoned "R-2" and "C-3" West - Vacant, zoned "R-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: Two policy documents pertain to this site. One is the Highway 10 Plan which designates this property as part of a transition zone. The other is the report pending before the Board of Directors entitled "Policies for Development in the Highway 10 and Rock Creek Corridors". This report contains a recommended -policy reading as follows: "Additional commercial zoning beyond that shown on land use plans may be allowed at existing commercial nodes if increased designed requirements are met. The additional design requirements would include buffer areas, setbacks, height limitations, minimum site sizes, floor area ratios and access controls. Designation of a specific use -through the PUD process would be desirable where the additional commercial zoning is adjacent to existing residential developments". The subject property does represent the expansion of a commercial node and therefore could be considered in light of the recommended policy. Staff suggests that the following standards be considered in evaluating this proposed rezoning as well as other proposed node expansions: 1. A Planned Unit Development application should be required for any expansion of a node. Z -5139 -.,(Continued) 2. At least a 50 foot undisturbed or replanted buffer should be provided adjacent to existing single family residential uses, the exact distance of the buffer to depend on the thickness of existing tree cover and topographic factors. 3. The maximum floor area ratio for a commercial expansion should be 0.15. 4. Landscaping of parking lots should be three times that required by the Landscape Ordinance. 5. A 40 foot landscape strip should be provided along and parallel to all street property lines; or landscaped earth berms, 4 feet high, should be provided along streets where parking adjoins the streets. Shrubs and smaller trees should be planted on the berms, and the berm area should be at least 25 feet in width. 6. Parking should be designed in concert with the building and landscaping, so as to provide for a balance of all elements and avoid large unbroken paved surfaces. Parking should not be allowed in buffer areas, and off- street parking should be prohibited. 7. A lighting plan should be required indicating the location, size, type and number of all external lighting systems. All lighting should be designed so as to cast illumination only onto the site served, and the lighting should be shielded from view of neighboring residential lots. 8. All development proposals -should be limited to street access as set forth in the Commercial and Office Subdivision Plat Requirements of the Little Rock Subdivision Regulations. Higher standards for place- ment or design should be imposed where specifically identified as a need by the Traffic Engineer. 9. In every instance, site and structure planning should incorporate design concepts compatible with the neighborhood. This should be construed to mean that building style, wall finish, display windows, interior lighting, dumpsters and loading facilities will be of a nature that creates the least contrast, glare and noise to be compatible with nearby residential areas. The Planning Commission should exercise architectural review. Z-5139 (Continued) 10. Truck/service areas and trash containers should not be visible -from adjacent residential areas or be visible from any street. Such areas should be screened from view. They should not be located in proximity to residential uses (including multi -family uses) so that noise and view will not be problems. 11. A minimum 100 foot setback of commercial structures should be required from arterial rights-of-way. 12. A maximum building height of 35 feet should be permitted, with the building height being measured to the highest point of building elevation. If the site adjoins existing single family residential uses, the maximum building height should be 25 feet. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Taylor Loop Road should have a total of 45 feet dedicated from center line in order to meet minor arterial standards which call for a total right-of-way of 90 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This policy issue (commercial node expansion) is being considered by the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 24, 1989) The applicant, David Jones, was present. There were between 150-200 interested persons in attendance. (The registration cards indicated 13 objectors and 15 supporters of the commercial rezoning). Gary Greeson, Planning Director, reviewed the Staff's position of no recommendation and answered several questions. David Jones then spoke and said he was acting as agent for Vogel Realty, the proposed developer. Mr. Jones told the Commi-ssion--that the Staff's -no recommendation was significant and that the area was in transition. He went on to discuss the future of Highway 10, a five -lane roadway, and that it was one of the strongest growth corridors in Little Rock. Mr. Jones then gave some history of the Highway 10 Plan and indicated some willingness to amend the request to "C-2." He made some comments about the proposed Z-5139 (Continued) site plan and presented a map of the Highway 10 Plan area. He described the planning process for Highway 10 which included a study committee and restricting commercial zoning to the major intersections. Mr. Jones discussed the transition zone concept and reviewed the commercial nodes along Highway 10 at Chenal Parkway, the Johnson Ranch PUD, and East Taylor Loop Road. He said the plan had been stagnating growth and it should not force development away. Mr. Jones reminded the Commission that a plan was just that, a guide and not zoning. Evelyn Thomas of the Thomas Park Subdivision submitted a petition with 542 signatures in support of the commercial rezoning. Ms. Thomas described the Thomas Park Subdivision and said she had been on the Highway 10 Study Committee. She then discussed the plan which put in the transition zones to act as buffers and to allow quality PUD's. Ms. Thomas made some additional comments and recommended approval of the rezoning. At this point, a number of persons (40-50) stood in support of the proposed commercial rezoning. David Jones addressed the Commission again and discussed the Hinson Road connection which he -said will provide access to Highway 10 for a number of subdivisions in the Pleasant Valley area. He went on to say -that once the connection is completed, the East Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10 intersection will be one of the busiest and the most important commercial corner in the area. Bill Dodge, a real estate consultant for Safeway, spoke and said Safeway always tried to locate at a major intersection and that you could not -ask for a better situatio-n than East Taylor Loop Road and Highway 10. Mr. Dodge said that Safeway moved their plans from Rodney Parham because of future growth demands and then described reasons for selecting this specific location. Mike Marcussen with Safeway Stores presented some numbers and facts about Safeway.- He said t -here were 13 stores in the central Arkansas area that provided 1,268 jobs with a payroll of $19 million dollars. Mr. Marcussen said Safeway will build the store if the zoning goes through and employ up to 80 people with 60 being full- time positions. Wes Lowder, Robin Borne' and Don Chambers of the Mehlburger Engineering firm -then review various aspects of the proposed site plan. Mr. Lowder described the property in question and the necessary site work for the development. Mr. Lowder Z-5139 (Continued) H--; said the buffer and fence would screen the residences to the south and the landscaping conforms to the recommended enhanced design criteria. Mr. Borne' said that the plans have not been completed but they would maintain the residential character of the area. Mr. Chambers said the buffer area made up 25% of the total land and the transition zone guidelines were used in designing the site plan. Mr. Chambers also said that access exceeded the City's requirements. There was discussion about why a PCD was not being utilized. Mr. Lowder said there was still some uncertainties associated with the project. David Jones also said that Safeway had some concerns with potential use restrictions that could be imposed with the PCD. Mr. Lowder added some comments about the proposed building. He said it would be 20 feet higher than the residences and very little of the structure would be visible from the south. David Jones said he was not trying to change the plan because the site was adjacent to a commercial node. He pointed out to the Commission that everything was being done to ensure that the project would have a minimal impact on the surrounding properties. The following persons spoke in favor of the rezoning: Randy Alexander, Beverly Ashcraft, Bonnie Cargile, Ed Cargile, George Dyer, Larry Grace, Mindy Green, David McMullan, Betty Saugey, Tommy Tucker and Tommy Tucker, Jr. The supporters provided a number of reasons for endorsing the request, including convenience of having a Safeway Store; rather have commercial t-han office or multi -family; a positive step for the area; a quality project; no demand for office land; provide -some job opportunities; a -logi-cal location for a commercial development, being at a major intersection; Highway 10 was not a -scenic corridor in the immediate vicinity; and the plan needed to have some flexibility. The fol -lowing persons spoke against the commercial rezoning: Melissa Carroll, Donald Glowen, Dennis Smith, Jack Larrison, Ruth Bell, Marie Smoots, -Ron Peace and Rick Russell. Melissa Carroll told the Planning Commission that the opponents were still circulating -petitions and they will be presented to the Board of Directors on February 7, 1989. Z-5139 (Continued) Points made by the objectors included: allow the plan to work; street and traffic problems; the plan needed to be maintained; setting an undesirable precedent for commercial zoning in the transition zone; pressure for additional rezonings will increase; no demand for more commercial zoning; the Plan was only two and one-half years old and needed more time; moved to the area because of the Highway 10 Plan; rezoning was a violation of the Plan; needed to protect the residential investments; and the commercial rezoning could have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Wendell Griffen, an attorney retained by the Westchester Subdivision, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Griffen said the rezoning should be resisted because of the Plan and elaborated on a number of reasons for denying the request. He said that the rezoning violated the Plan and allowing a commercial strip will ruin the scenic quality of Highway 10 and the neighborhood. Mr. Griffen pointed out to the Commission that less than ten acres in the area had been developed for commercial use and the Plan was projected to the year 2005. He reminded the Commission that the Plan was adopted in 1986 and questioned whether it was reasonable to determine if the Plan had failed after only two and on -half years. Mr. Griffen said the property in question was planned for the transition zone even though it was close to a major intersection, and development at commercial nodes would be discouraged if the site was rezoned. Mr. Griffen then discussed the sale of the Candlewood property and submitted some materials for the record including Bankruptcy Court proceedings and County deed records. He said the site was sold to Vogel Realty who sold it to another party in a short period -of time. He then concluded by saying that there was no hardship and asked the Commission to enforce the Plan by denying the commercial rezoning. David Jones responded to Mr. Griffen's comments about the Candlewood sale and said a feasibility -study determined that the Candlewood property, was inappropriate for a Safeway store. Mr. Jones then amended the request to "C-2" and said the site plan would conform to the enhanced design standards. He -also offered to attach approval of the site plan as a condition of the rezoning. Bobby Allison, an objector from -the Thomas Park Subdivision, then spoke. He said he moved to the area with the thought that the Plan would be maintained and asked the Commission to deny the commercial rezoning. Z-5139 (Continued) Gene Pfeifer also objected to the rezoning and said the Plan needed to be maintained. Mr. Pfeifer told the Commission that there was more profit in rezoning the transition zone area and breaking the Plan. Additional comments were then made by Wendell Griffen, David Jones, Bill Rector, Jerilyn Nicholson, Walter Riddick and John Schlereth. Mr. Griffen said that everybody should live within the established rules and presented some photographs of other properties listed by Vogel Realty. Mr. Jones said the rezoning was not breaking the Plan and asked for a vote on the "C-2" request. Commissioner Schlereth said the primary issue was whether to allow the expansion of existing commercial nodes for quality development. A motion was made to recommend approval of "C-2" as amended, conditioned upon the site plan being approved by the Planning Commission. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Jerilyn Nicholson). The "C-2" rezoning was approved. February 21, 1989 �=S�S�—=—TQ—REZQNE_A_FARQFE_QN_E��HWA�_�Q_AN�_EAST TAYLQR_LQ4P— KIM- FRQM_$2_TQ__C2 STAFF_REQQ8NENNAT34N: Staff recommends denial of the C2 rezoning request for the following reasons: 1. Rezoning of the property would clearly violate and undermine the adopted Highway 10 Plan. 2. The proposed development would include two separate buildings on the front of the site for free-standing bank and fast-food businesses. This type of strip frontage development would set a pattern that would escalate over time into small -lot commercial development with numerous driveways, related traffic problems, and signs along Highway 10. 3. The proposed shopping center is not a land use authorized in a Transition Zone in the Highway 10 Plan. The shopping center is too intensive to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. 4. The proposed rezoning extends into a Transition Zone shown on the Highway 10 Plan, without providing for a planned unit development, thereby contravening the basic protection called for in the Transition Zones in the Highway 10 Plan. Even an office or multifamily development would have to be submitted as a PUD under the Transition Zone Guidelines in the Highway 10 Plan. With a PUD application, uses could be restricted and specific conditions attached to the development by by the Board of Directors. 5. Insufficient time has elapsed since the adoption of the Highway 10 Plan, thus rendering it impossible to make a fair and adequate assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Plan regarding commercial development in the Highway 10 corridor. The Plan represents the end result of numerous meetings, in-depth study, substantial citizen involvement, and consultant assistance. More time is needed to allow the Plan to work. if 6. The proposed rezoning would allow commercial uses and structures on the site that are not compatible with contiguous established residential uses. Nearby resideK+ial uses, especially to the south and.east, will })e adversely affected in terms of view, noise, and residential environment. 7. The rezoning would impact neighboring properties in such a way as to make them unsuitable for single-family uses and would provide a precedent for rezoning the single- family uses to a commercial zoning district. This additional commercial zoning would further contribute toward strip commercial development along Highway 10, and the undermining of other established residential uses. 8. Less than 5% of the 168 acres designated for commercial development in the plan has been developed to date. Additional commercial zoning is unwarranted at this time, given the abundance of already designated commercial acreage which is undeveloped. 9. A future traffic capacity deficiency is projected on Highway 10. The rezoning of the subject property would add to the projected traffic volume and could result in aggravation of future traffic problems.