Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5756-B Staff AnalysisMarch 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: -57 56-B NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATE: on the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: John A. Rees Pat MCGetrick REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9298 223-9900 AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; & C-1 Conditional Use for an eating place without drive-in service PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES RE UESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated. STAFF UPDATE: The Planning Commission considered the PCD request at the September 19, 1995 Commission hearing, and the vote to recommend approval. of the PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. The applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors, and at the Board meeting of November 7, 1995, presented a proposal -for a revised PCD site plan and a change in the proposed uses. The Board referred the amended proposal to the Commission for a re -hearing of the item, with the proposed changes to be discussed. The applicant proposed to the Board of Directors to: 1) eliminate the proposed restaurant use; 2) set the rear buffer width at 10 feet and terrace the rear retaining wall; 3) eliminate the drive -around behind the south building, but provide partial drive-arounds behind both buildings; 4) relocate the southern dumpster away from the rear/east property line; and, 5) dedicate the required right -o -way along Bowman Rd. Makch 14, 1996 0DBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Con FILE NO 7-57 6-B The applicant has, however, indicated to staff that further modifications will be proposed; that the PCD site plan which was approved in 1994 will be presented for review, with the only change being in the size of the building area. (The approved PCD site plan has a 9,000 square foot, single -story building at the southern end of the property and a two-story building at the north end of the property which has 7,125 square feet on the lower level and 17,175 square feet on the upper level.) The Planning Staff can support the reported change, subject to a large portion of the lower level of the northern -most building being used for storage for the reported furniture store use. _BACKGROUND: The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district, plus an additional use, a video rental store. Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature, will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted in the 20 foot wide buffer 'strip along the rear, east, property line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid screening of the site from the east. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear, east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth; 2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250 square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at 16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant 2 March 14, 1996 ❑BDIVI I ITEM NO.: A(ContFILE use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed to be a "sit-down" restaurant. A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of- way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested. A. PROPOSAL RE QEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right- of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated. B. EXT TING NDITIONS: I The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for development. The site slopes generally downward from a high point at the south property line to a low point at the northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in grades of 63 feet. The site is presently zoned PCD. Land to the north and across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2 zoning, lies to the east. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY C MMENTS: Public works comments that: 1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated. 2) The proposed partial access drive behind the northernmost building should be a through drive to provide emergency access. 3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to any building permit being approved. 4) -The required stormwater detention analysis must be provided, and the effects on downstream systems must be evaluated. Provide for the 100 -year discharge from the site through adjacent properties. 5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being 10 feet at any location. The first wall behind the properties to the east shall be located a 3 March 14, 1996 e L l SQBDZVISIO ITEM A (Cgnt FILE NO. • Z- 7 --B horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the height of the wall. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the rear, east, property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that on-site fire hydrants may be needed. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet minimum Ordinance requirements. Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued: A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be evergreen shrubs which are 30" in height at planting, spaced every 3 feet. Curb and guttering or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the proposed grade elevation difference along the eastern side of the property, additional buffer width may be necessary. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis, based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet 4 March 14, 1996 seen y -If ITEM No.: A Cant. FILE No.: 2-5756-B of building area- sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, that one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for general business and retail sales, one space for each 300 square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor area is to be provided. The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and 17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet, representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a building coverage of 20.3°'x. sec. 36-299 requires the building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 35% of the lot area. other commercial districts do not have building coverage limits. In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was not specified by Public Works, and is not a requirement of the approved PCD. E. ANALYSIS: The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the finished grade at one point behind the north building, and generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the landscaping buffer requirement and the Public Works civil engineering perspective, this proposed condition is unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and the shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced effect, is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows, or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property, excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal. The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of one of the buildings and over half the length of the other. Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated, and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east, face of the building is a significant change from the originally -negotiated and subsequently approved concept for the development. This is unacceptable. `y March 14, 1996 " , HDIVI I ITEM A(ContFILE Nb.• 07 7 -H The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the rear property line area; the proposed development places the dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service hours; no change in this provision has been made by the applicant. The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This approved concept has changed drastically, and is not acceptable. The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a "shopping center" (to use the applicant's terminology); yet, the parking is deficient for even an office development, let along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires much more parking than is allotted. The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only increases to 29.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the originally.approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district. (The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.) The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for the site. The proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The amended request does not meet the intent of the original compromise. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. 0 March 14, 1996 HDIVT I ITEM ffO.• A n . FILE NO 17 - SUB DIVI 7- SUBDIVT I N MMITTEE CO MME T: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works comments; specifically, he reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present. Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns, as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109 spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site. This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development, the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, and are not mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking for patrons and employees. Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to delete the restaurant use from the current application. He reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, a -discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear 7 March 14, 1996 1. SUBDIVISI ITEM N A (Cont.) FILE drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be constructed on the property line. He related that, as the developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking. Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from the Birchwood Neighborhood ASSOC]Lation expressing the Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of the Commissioner's desk. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected. Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He related that,the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He said that the Association also objects to the height of the retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to look at. He presented a petition from the Association in opposition to the application. Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear of the building; and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall, and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view. Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr., right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally, the commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward" to make concessions so that the property would be'a usable and developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8 8 March 14, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM N A(Cont.)FILE VC) feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the retaining wall, Alamo residents will be looking up to a higher plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to those residents further away from the property. He pointed out that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd too much onto the site. He urged the Commission to retain the buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting property owners, and to deny the application. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and being so close to the rear property line, would produce an activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the route of the sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one available route would take the service main across abutting residential properties. Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the available sewer on Bowman Rd. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high screening wall to separate a residential development from the Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the wall would decrease the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately 250. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site. Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the wall, the abutting residences would not see much if any of the vans; that, in -fact, they would see only the top of the buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock 9 March 14, 1996 allBDIVISIO ITEM A (Con FILE ND.:- 7 -B at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way. Staff pointed out that, when the original PCD was approved, Public Works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD was approved without the additional right-of-way being required. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd. is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for utilities. Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of the right-of-way. Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would probably be amenable to such a franchise. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade; the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the property. Staff commented that, in the originally approved PCD, the dumpsters were to be located at the front of the property along Bowman Rd. Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive- arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position. 10 Match 14, 1996 L �U13Q1 I IQI+ ITEM A (Cont- FILE PLANNI. MMI I N ACTT (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated January 4, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the March 14, 1995 Commission hearing. Staff noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated February 21, 1996, in which the applicant asked that his request for review of the amended PCD be withdrawn. staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal, with prejudice, prohibiting the applicant from resubmit the same or virtually the same application for 12 months. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 11 FILE NO.: Z -5756--B NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: EN INFER: John A. Rees Pat MCGetrick REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9298 223-9900 AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONIN PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; & C-1 Conditional Use for an eating place without drive-in service PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 vARIANCES RE UESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated. BACKGROUND: The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district, plus an additional use, a video rental store. Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature, will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted in the 20 foot wide buffer strip along the rear, east, property line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid screening of the site from the east. FILE - 7 -H n TATEMENT OF PROPOS : The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear, east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth; 2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250 square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at 16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed to be a "sit-down" restaurant. A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of- way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested. A. PR Pd AL RE DE T• Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right- of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated. B. EXISTING_CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for development. The site slopes generally downward from a high point at the south property line to a low point at the northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in grades of 63 feet. The site is presently zoned PCD. Land to the north and across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2 zoning, lies to the east. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated. 2 FILE N Z- 7 6-E 2) The proposed partial access drive behind the northernmost building should be a through drive to provide emergency access. 3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to any building permit being approved. 4) The required stormwater detention analysis must be provided, and the effects on downstream systems must be evaluated. Provide for the 100 -year discharge from the site through adjacent properties. 5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being 10 feet at any location. The first wall behind the properties to the east shall be located a horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the height of the wall. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the rear, east, property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that on-site fire hydrants may be needed. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet minimum Ordinance requirements. 3 FILE NO.• z-5156-13 (Cont.) Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued: A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be evergreen shrubs which are 30" in height at planting, spaced every 3 feet. Curb and guttering or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the proposed grade elevation difference along the eastern side of the property, additional buffer width may be necessary. D. ISSUEV LEGAL/TECHNICAL DESIGN: A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis, based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet of building area. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, that one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for general business and retail sales, one space for each 300 square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor area is to be provided. The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and 17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet, representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a building coverage of 28.3%. Sec. 36-299 requires the building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 35% of the lot area. Other commercial districts do not have building coverage limits. In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was not specified by Public Works, and is not a requirement of the approved PCD. 4 FILE N Z- 7 -H (Cont.) E. ANALYSIS: The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the finished grade at one point behind the north building, and generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the landscaping buffer requirement and the Public works civil engineering perspective, this proposed condition is unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and the shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced effect, is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows, or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property, excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal. The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of one of the buildings and over half the length of the other. Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated, and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east, face of the building is a significant change from the originally negotiated and subsequently approved concept for the development. This is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the rear property line area; the proposed development places the dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service hours; no change in this provision has been made by the applicant. The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This approved concept has changed drastically, and is not acceptable. The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a "shopping center" (to use the applicant's terminology); yet, the parking is deficient for even an office development, let along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires much more parking than is allotted. The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only increases to 25.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the 5 FILE NQ.• Z- 756-B (Cant ) - originally approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district. (The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.) The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for .the site. The proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The amended request does not meet the intent of the original compromise. F. OTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works comments; specifically, he reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIO : (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present. Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns, as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square 6 FILE NO.: _Z-57 6-H Con feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109 spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site. This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development, the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, and are not mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking for patrons and employees. Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to delete the restaurant use from the current application. He reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, a discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be constructed on the property line. He related that, as the developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking. Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from the Birchwood Neighborhood Association expressing the Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of the Commissioner's desk. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected. Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He related that the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He said that the Association also objects to the height of the retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to look at. He presented a petition from the Association in opposition to the application. 7 FILE NC.: Z- 756-B (Cont.)_ Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he Opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear of the building; and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall, and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view. Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr., right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally, the Commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward" to make concessions so that the property would be a usable and developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8 feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the retaining wall, Alamo residents will be looking up to a higher plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to those residents further away from the property. He pointed out that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd too much onto the site. He urged the Commission to retain the buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting property owners, and to deny the application. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and being so close to the rear property line, would produce an activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the route of the sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one available route would take the service main across abutting residential properties. Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the available sewer on Bowman Rd. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high 8 FILE NO.: Z-57 -B (Cont.) screening wall to separate a residential development from the Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the wall would decrease the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately 25%. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site. Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the wall, the abutting residences would not see much if any of the vans; that, in fact, they would see only the top of the buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way. Staff pointed out that, when the original PCD was approved, Public Works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD was approved without the additional right-of-way being required. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd. is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for utilities. Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of the right-of-way. Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would probably be amenable to such a franchise. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade; the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the property. 9 FILE NO.: Z -5756-B Staff commented that, in the originally approved PCD, the dumpsters were to be located at the front of the property along Bowman Rd. Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive- arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote ❑f 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position. 10 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3. FILE NO.: 7-5756-B NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER..: ENGY bTE ER: John A. Rees Pat McGetrick REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING,. 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron.Lri., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9298 223-9900 AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTO: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZQ NIN : PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; & C-1 Conditional Use for an eating place without drive-in service PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated. BACKGROUND: The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district, plus an additional use, a video rental store. Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature, will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted in the 20 foot wide buffer strip along the rear, east, property line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid screening of the site from the east. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM mont. FILE NO 7 -B STATEMENT QF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear, east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth; 2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250 square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at 16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed to be a "sit-down" restaurant. A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of- way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested. A. PROPOSALRE UEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right- of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated. B. EXISTING CONDITIdNS: The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for development. The site slopes generally downward from a high point at the south property line to a low point at the northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in grades of 63 feet. The site is presently zoned PCD. Land to the north and across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2 zoning, lies to the east. E September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z- 7 6--B C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated. 2) The proposed partial access drive behind the northernmost building should be a through drive to provide emergency access. 3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to any building permit being approved. 4) The required stormwater detention analysis must be provided, and the effects on downstream systems must be evaluated. Provide for the 100 -year discharge from the site through adjacent properties. 5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being 10 feet at any location. The first wall behind the properties to the east shall be located a horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the height of the wall. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the rear, east, property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that on-site fire hydrants may be needed. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet minimum Ordinance requirements. Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued: 3 September 19, 1995 S BDIVI IO ITEM O.: Cora FILE NO.: Z- 756-8 A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be evergreen shrubs which are 30" in height at planting, spaced every 3 feet. Curb and guttering or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the proposed grade elevation' difference along the eastern side of the property, additional buffer width may be necessary. D. ISSDEV LEGAL/TECHNICAL D1 ESI : A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis, based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet of building area. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, that one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for general business and retail sales, one space for each 300 square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor area is to be provided. The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and 17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet, representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a building coverage of 28.3%. Sec. 36-299 requires the building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 35% of the lot area. Other commercial districts do not have building coverage limits. In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was not specified by Public works, and is not a requirement of the approved PCD. 4 September 19, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM Ng - - 3 (Qpnt FILE N E. ANALYSIS - The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the finished grade at one point behind the north building, and generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the landscaping buffer requirement and the Public Works civil engineering perspective, this proposed condition is unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and. the shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced effect, is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows, or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property, excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal. The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of one of the buildings and over half the length of the other. Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated, and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east, face of the building is a significant change from the originally negotiated and subsequently approved concept for the development. This is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the rear property line area; the proposed development places the dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service hours; no change in this provision has been made by the applicant. The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This approved concept has changed drastically, and is not acceptable. The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a "shopping center" (to use the applicant's terminology); yet, the parking is deficient for even an office development, let along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires much more parking than is allotted. 0 September 19, 1995 aUBDIVISION ITEM Cont. FILE 7.-5756-B The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only increases to 29.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the originally approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district. (The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.) The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for the site. The proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The amended request does not meet the intent of the original compromise. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. ,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works comments; specifically, he reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING OMMI I N ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 191 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present. 6 September 19, 1995 BDIVI z ITEM(Cont.)FILE Z- 7 -B Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns, as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109 spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site. This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development, the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, -and are not mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking for patrons and employees. Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to delete the restaurant use from the current application. He reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, a discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be constructed on the property line. He related that, as the developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking. Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from the Birchwood Neighborhood Association expressing the Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of the Commissioner's desk. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected. Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. 7 September 19, 1995 SQBDIVI 1_M ITEM NO.: n FILE N Zz_5. -B He related that the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He said that the Association also objects to the height of the retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to look at. He presented a petition from the Association in opposition to the application. Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear -of the building; and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall, and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view. Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr., right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally, the Commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward" to make concessions so that the property would be a usable and developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8 feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the retaining wall, Alamo residents will be Looking up to a higher plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to those residents further away from the property. He pointed out that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd too much onto the site. He urged the commission to retain the buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting property owners, and to deny the application. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and being so close to the rear property line, would produce an activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood. 8 September 19,'1995 SUB DIVT l ITEM(ContFILE Z- 7 -B Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification !on the route of the sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one available route would take the service main across abutting residential properties. Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the available sewer on Bowman Rd. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high screening wall to separate a residential development from the Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the -wall would decrease the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately 25%. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site. Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the wall■ the abutting residences would not see much if any of the vans; that, in fact, they would see only the top of the buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way. Staff pointed out that, when the original PCD was approved, Public Works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD was approved without the additional right-of-way being required. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd. is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for utilities. Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of the right-of-way. Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would probably be amenable to such a franchise. September 19, 1995 BDIVI Z ITEM on FILE NO.: Z- 755-B Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade; the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the property. Staff commented that, in the originally approved -PCD, the, dumpsters were to be located at the front of-the*property along Bowman Rd. Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive- arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position. 10