HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5755 Staff AnalysisREQUEST: Amend the City Land Use
Plan in the Chenal
District
LOCATION: Rock Creek to Napa Valley
- west of Bowman
SOURCE: Zoning Request - Planning
Commission Action
STAFF REPORT:
A request for a planned commercial development initiated a
review of the land use plan. The currently adopted plan
recommends low density multi -family for the northern portion
of the project. Due to the unique design of this proposed
public/private development for both recreational and
commercial purposes, a change in the plan is proposed. The
low density multifamily use area must be carefully designed
and reviewed to assure that a commercial use will not
adversely impact the area. With the surrounding area
already developed, the proposal should not have negative
ripple effects. However, the ways the area connects with
its neighbors must be carefully designed and reviewed.
A community shopping designation is proposed for the area
shown for low density multifamily north of Rock Creek and
west of Bowman.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
1. Meeting Date: December 21, 1993
2. Case No.: Z-5755
3. Reguest: Establishment of Woodcreek village Long -Form PCD
4. Location: North of West Markham Street and south of Mara
Lynn Road, approximately 0.1 mile west of Bowman Road at
12,202 West Markham Street
5. Owner/Applicant: Peak Development/Moses Nosari Real Estate
6. Existing Status: Existing zoning is C-2, R-2, and MF -12.
Site is undeveloped and wooded. Rock Creek crosses the site
and a portion of the site is city -owned land.
7. Proposed ❑se: Shopping center and city park
8. Staff Recommendation: Approval
9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: Transfer of
city -owned land to developer; finalizing of agreement for
development of Rock Creek and city park; and formulating
agreement for assessment of park maintenance contribution by
developer.
11. Right -of --Way Issues: None
12. Recommendation Forwarded With: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
1 abstention, 1 open position
13. Objectors: None
14. Neighborhood Plan: Rodney Parham (2) and Chenal (19)
FILE NO.: Z-
INAME: WOODCREEK VILLAGE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
LOCATION: North of West Markham Street and south of Mara Lynn
Road, approximately 0.1 mile west of Bowman Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER:
JIM MOSES/PEAR DEVELOPMENT MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
225 E. Markham St. 11225 Huron Lane
Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211
376-6555 223-9900
AREA: 42.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONIN : MF -12 & C-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial Shopping Center
PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 & 19
CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 & 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a Planned Commercial Development District
in order to construct a shopping center development. In addition
to the 249,375 square foot shopping center building and accessory
parking for 1,296 vehicles, as well as an 8000 square foot
building and parking for 148 vehicles on an out -parcel, the
development is proposed to include construction of an urban park.
The construction of the park and facilities is proposed to be
funded by the developer, with input and future management by the
City. The use of the out -parcel is proposed to be restricted to
a use compatible with the park. Parking for the shopping center
is proposed to be available for the public utilizing the park.
A. PROPOSAW RE UEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for a PCD for the WoodCreek
Development. The applicant requests approval for
development of a 42.24 -acre site to include a shopping
center and concomitant parking, an out -parcel for a use
which will be compatible with the park use, and a City park
facility to include a boardwalk, pavilion, amphitheater, and
improvements to Rock Creek. The request includes a shopping
center building of 249,375 square feet and its parking of
1,296 vehicles, plus an 8000 square foot building and a
parking lot for 148 vehicles.
FILE NO.: Z-5755 Continued
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and contains City -owned
land through which Rock Creek flows. The site is presently
zoned MF -12, with a small C-2 area at the south-west corner
of the acreage. The site is heavily wooded and the
topography rises from an elevation of approximately 410 feet
along West Markham and Rock Creek to 540 feet along Mara
Lynn, a difference of 130 feet.
C. ENGINEERING UTILITY CONTENTS:
Engineering indicates that a study needs to be provided for
the floodplain modification anticipated. Further, a grading
plan and excavation plan and a traffic impact analysis need
to be provided. Engineering indicates that construction of
a right turn lane on Markham Street/Bowman Street will be
required. Mara Lynn must be constructed to Master Street
Plan requirements.
Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be
required.
Wastewater reports that there is a sewer main outfall
located on the property, and that Wastewater should be
contacted for details.
Arkansas Power & Light will require easements.
ARRLA Gas approved the submittal without comment.
Southwestern Bell approved the submittal without comment.
The Fire Department approved the street and topography only.
Parks and Recreation will require coordination with that
department in this development on the rechannelization of
Rock Creek and on the development of the park site.
Site Plan Review reports that the southern parking lot
should be moved northward out of the required 40 foot wide
buffer along Markham Street.
D. I DE LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
A preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be provided.
The project narrative needs to be more specific on the types
of uses proposed for the shopping center and for the
out -parcel, as well as specify any convertibility requested.
2
FILE NO.: Z-5755 (Continued)
The plan/plat needs to show the zoning classifications of
the site and of the abutting properties. A storm drainage
analysis, with typical ditch sections, is to be provided.
The source of title is to be furnished.
A schematic landscaping plan is required. The proposed
treatment of the perimeter of the property is to be
addressed. The buffer requirement along the north property
line is to be addressed.
E. ANALYSIS•
The Chenal District Plan currently shows the site as Low
Density Multi -family north of Rock Creek and Park/Open Space
south of the creek. Although the proposal is not consistent
with the adopted plan, the proposed development is unique,
in that it represents a public\private attempt to mix a
commercial development with an urban park. It is the
opinion of the planning staff, that the proposed
commercial/park mix would complement the area, provided that
it be done with appropriate design considerations, which
would include signage, landscaping and significant
buffering, particularly on the Bowman Road frontage. The
parking lot, in particular, should be designed to be
sensitive to the park and the creek frontage.
Several critical issues remain unresolved, or there is
incomplete information available to complete the staff
review. Engineering has not received the needed floodplain
study or traffic analysis. Parks and Recreation has not
reviewed the development plan for the Rock Creek
channelization and has not approved the development plan for
the park. These items are critical in arriving at a
recommendation to the Commission.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of this item until complete
documentation and submittals for the application are
received.
5UBDIVI5IQN COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 28, 1993)
Mr. Jim Moses, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the
engineer, were present. Staff presented the request, and
Mr. Moses and Mr. McGetrick discussed the proposal with the
Committee and staff. Mr. McGetrick presented additional drawings
needed to complete the application requirements. The proposed
uses for the shopping center and for the park were discussed.
The discussion outline was reviewed. Conflict with the Land Use
Plan was discussed. The item was then forwarded to the
Commission for the public hearing.
3
FILE NO.: _Z-5755 (Continued)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 16, 1993)
Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a written request
asking that the hearing of this issue be deferred until the
Planning Commission meeting of November 30, 1993. Additional
time needed to be gained in order to complete design work and
obtain approvals from Parks and Engineering. The item was
included in the Consent Agenda for approval and was approved by a
vote of 8 ayes, no nays, 0 abstentions, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
PLANNING -COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 30, 1993)
Neighborhoods and Planning Director, Jim Lawson, introduced the
item. He indicated that the applicant's proposal was complex and
involved concerns of not only Planning, but Parks and
Engineering, and that staff's approval was based on conditions
being met which addressed these concerns. Mr. Lawson indicated
that the applicant needed to make a full presentation to outline
the proposal, the nature of the concerns, and the manner in which
the concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Jim Moses, of Moses and Nosari Real Estate, on behalf of Peak
Development, presented the proposal. He reported that the
proposal involved construction of a strip -type shopping center
containing approximately 250,000 square feet, construction of an
8,000 square foot building on the one out -parcel shown on the
plan, and construction of a major public park. The park
development would be undertaken simultaneously with the
development of the shopping center, and would be constructed at
the expense of the developer. Rock Creek, he indicated, would be
improved in a manner that would both flow appropriately, yet not
be a concrete flume; it would be a natural looking creek bed with
water falls and a detention pond. Included in the proposal would
be an annual contribution by the developer for a 25 -year time
period for assistance in maintenance of the park. Mr. Moses
reported that the proposed site is at the eastern edge of a 40 to
50 acre site currently owned by the City, and the development of
the park as a part of the proposed development could be a
beginning of the development of a major public park extending to
the west.
Mr. Moses presented to Commissioners a copy of correspondence
addressed to Mark Webre of the Parks Department and commented on
its contents. It indicates that the developer will make an
annual contribution to the Parks Department for upkeep of the
park at Woodcreek Village of $7,500. The maintenance amount
would be levied against the property in the form of an annual
assessment that would terminate in 25 years. The developer, it
indicates, will construct park improvements in the amount of
4
FILE Nn.: Z-5755 Continued
$625,000. This is beyond the costs of basic excavation, fill,
the creek channel work,_ the bridge structure, and design fees
not exceeding 6% of the cost. It includes the costs for
earth -forming for berms, the amphitheater, etc.; landscaping;
sidewalks; a footbridge; bikepaths; pavilion(s); lighting,
signage; irrigation and other plumbing; and, facades for bridges
and the creek channel.
Mr. Moses indicated that Parks had been closely involved in the
planning for the park and the preparation of the budget for its
construction and maintenance.
Mr. Moses responded to staff's request for information on the
proposed use of the out -parcel. He indicated that the use was
not identified, but that he requested approval for all C-3 uses
for the out -parcel.
Mr. Moses outlined the signage request for the PCD. He proposed
one major pylon sign which would be a 450 square foot sign, 36
feet in height, to be located approximately 200 feet north of
Markham. One small ground mounted monument sign on Markham not
to exceed 4 feet in height and 8 feet in width. One ground
mounted monument sign on Napa Valley Road not to exceed 4 feet in
height and 8 feet in width. One pole -mounted sign for the
out -parcel not to exceed 160 square feet in area an 36 feet in
height. Additionally, he requested all wall, mansard, awning,
under -canopy, projecting, and incidental signs allowed by
Ordinance for commercial zones.
Engineering and Parks staff indicated concurrence with the
proposal. Commissioners indicated enthusiastic approval and
appreciation for the developer's proposal. Ruth Bell,
representing the League of Women's Voters of Pulaski County
indicated pleasure that the concerns of Engineering and Parks had
been addressed and indicated pleasure with the proposal.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval
to the Board of Directors. The motion carried with a
7 ayes, no nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner
1 open position.
5
of the PCD
vote of
Ball), and