Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5787-A Staff AnalysisDecember 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-57 7-A NAME: APPLETREE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATI N: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 400 feet north of Chenal Parkway _DEVELOPER* Best Buy c/o REES DEVELOPMENT 12115 Hinson Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 223-9298 AREA: 3.5 ACRES ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACI{GROUND . PROPOSED USES: Commercial/Retail The PCD was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,612, on March 15, 1994. This followed the Planning Commission recommendation of approval on February 8, 1994. At that time, the intended user was "Toys -R -IIs", but convertibility to the following uses was approved: book or stationary store, clothing store, drug store or pharmacy, furniture store, hobby shop, lawn and garden center (enclosed), office, office equipment and sales, and retail uses not listed (enclosed). The building setback from the north property line was to be 50 feet, with a planted buffer between the building and the north property line. A privacy fence was to be erected as a land use buffer between the PGD site and the residential use, with the fence in the area of the building being 30 feet off the north property line. The north 25 feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area, and it was to be enclosed within the facade of the building, with the restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The main facade of the building, then, was set at 75 feet off the north property line. The approved PCD restricted the hours of loading and operation of the compactor to daylight hours, and requires that the building colors on the north, facade be "neutral tones". The t December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISON ITEM N n in FILE R7 7-A approved building "footprint" was 146.83 feet wide, plus the 25 foot loading dock/compactor area, by 210.85 feet deep. There were, among other site work requirements, requirements for limiting construction activities on Sundays. When "Toys -R -IIs" failed to take the lease space for the Lot 1 area, a privacy fence was required to be erected along the north limits of the proposed building line. (Building walls, where no openings are provided, are allowable as a required land use buffer fence, and, since the wall was not in place, the required buffering was not in place. The temporary privacy fence at the wall location serves as a substitute for the wall.) STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amended PCD in order to modify the approved building "foot print", and to clarify that the allowable users can serve refreshments (coffee, soft drinks, pastries, - etc.) to customers as an accessory use to the primary retail use. Instead of the 146.83 foot wide building, plus a 25 foot loading dock/compactor area (for a total width of 171.83 feet), the proposal is for a 167.0 foot wide building, plus a 15 foot loading dock (for a total width of 182.0 feet). The building setback line off the north property line, then, is proposed to be reduced to 40 feet, plus or minus. Instead of the single tenant, two tenant spaces are proposed, the one abutting the Best Buy space being 82 feet wide; the northern -most space being 85 feet wide. The building depth changes from 210.85 feet to 180 feet. As was originally approved, the loading dock is to be enclosed, with a ramp from the parking lot which drops 4 feet at the dock. The temporary privacy fence would be removed, since the building line would provide the required screening device. A enclosed dumpster area is proposed to be provided at the northeast corner of the existing parking lot, immediately north of the loading dock drive. No changes to the existing parking lot or parking lot lighting are proposed. The applicant proposes, however, to replace the existing "shadow-box" fence between the development and the residential neighborhood to the north with a solid wood privacy fence. The applicant also proposes to increase the landscaping plantings in the planted buffer to the north of the fence. A. PROPOSAL/RE UEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Commercial Development. 2 December 12, 1995 SijHDIVI S IO� ITEM (Continued) FILE Nn.:- 7 7-A B. EXISTING ITICN : Lot 2 of the approved PCD is developed; it is the site of the Best Buy store. The parking lot associated with Lot 1 is developed; however, the building has not been built. The required landscape plantings and fencing are in place. A temporary fence is located at the line where the future building wall will be located in order to provide the required buffer. The site is zoned PCD. To the north is a C-1 zoned tract at the northwest corner of the site, then an R-2 zoned residential area along the remainder of the north boundary of the site. Immediately to the east is R-2 zoned land. Across S. Bowman Rd. to the west is C-3 zoned land. C. ENGINEERINGIDTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works has no issues to discuss. Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that any revisions to the site must be compatible with the existing sewer main extension which has been accepted by the Utility. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that the plan fails to show an existing 10' AP&L easement which runs along the front of the building line, and they note that they will require a 15 foot easement along the north property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARRLA has no objection to the layout, provided that no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department commented that access is limited on the north side. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TE HNICALDESIGN: The rip -rap drainage structure from the site to the north has never been properly installed, and does not work correctly. This must be corrected. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the northern on- site buffer meets the 28 foot minimum width requirement as required by the Ordinance, but falls below what was previously agreed upon. 3 December 12, 1995 IIBDIVI I❑ ITEM N ntinu d FILE I+IO.: Z -5787-A Confirming that use of the loading dock will be limited to daylight hours needs to be addressed, as well as the restriction on trucks waiting to unload. They do not need to wait during the night, with engines or motors running. The hours of servicing of the dumpster needs to be established. Limiting construction activity to daylight hours, as well as prohibiting construction on Sunday should be set. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed use, or clarification that customers can be served refreshments, are not an issue; the encroachment into the 50 foot northern buffer is. The Birchwood neighborhood, abutting the site to the north, pitched a hard-fought battle for this buffer, and, a year later, to propose decreasing it is unacceptable. Increasing the landscaping in the northern buffer and changing out the fence to one which will be in keeping with the neighborhood's reported desire could mitigate this Encroachment. As indicated above, a "blank" building wall can serve as a required screening device. The north wall of the building and the north wall of the loading dock will meet the requirement for this screen. The loading dock drive, however, is not protected from view from the north by a fence or other screen; the fence in this area is well below the grade of the drive. A fence or other screening device from the loading dock wall to the parking area needs to be provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD as presented, with the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer. If, however, the effects of the 10 foot encroachment are mitigated to the Birchwood neighborhood's satisfaction, staff can support the propsoed change in the PCD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. John Rees, with Rees Development, representing the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the requested amendment and reviewed with Mr. Rees, Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. The deficiencies in the plan were noted, and Mr. McGetrick responded that these would be addressed. The 51 December 12, 1995 SUBPIVIOI TEM (Continued) FILE Z-5787- committee - 787 - Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMI SION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated December 8, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Rezoning agenda of January 2, 1996, to permit the applicant and concerned Birchwood neighbors to meet and to try to resolve their concerns. Staff recommended approval of the deferral; however, staff noted that, since the Commission Bylaws provide that requests for deferral must be made by the applicant at least 5 working days prior to the Commission hearing, and, since the applicant submitted the request on Friday prior to the Tuesday hearing, a waiver of the Commission Bylaws would be needed. Staff recommended approval of the Bylaws waiver. The item was proposed by staff to be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 2, 1996 Rezoning agenda; however, Commissioner Daniel interjected that, with the stated purpose of the deferral being to permit the applicant and the Birchwood neighbors to meet and to try to resolve compatibility issues, he did not feel that, with the Christmas holidays and the unavailability of some of the Birchwood neighbors, the necessary meetings could be held. He suggested, instead, that the deferral be approved to the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing. Interim Chairperson Ball, noting that there were registration cards of persons who oppose the amended PCD which had been submitted, asked for input from these persons on the question of the requested deferral. Ms. Patty Roberts, a Birchwood neighbor, spoke both in opposition to deferring the hearing of the agenda item to the January 30th. agenda, but also in opposition to a deferral at all. She said that the applicant's representative has had numerous contacts with the Birchwood residents over the years on various hearing requests, and knows who the contact persons are. She related that there had been no contact by the applicant's representative regarding the subject hearing item, yet that there had been adequate time for him to have made the contact. She said that the Birchwood neighbors had been notified that the hearing was to be held "today"; that they had made arrangements to be present, and they wanted to make their presentation in opposition to the requested amended PCD without further deferral. She said that the applicant's representative should have either notified the Birchwood neighbors of his intention to seek a deferral, or should have been present and prepared to discuss the issues. 5 December 12, 1995 TTE.M No.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787 - Interim Chairperson Ball asked for a motion to deny approval of a waiver of the Bylaws to allow the item to be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, without the request being submitted at least five working days prior to the Commission hearing. The motion to deny the Bylaws waiver was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. Interim Chairperson Ball announced that the item would be heard by the Commission on the regular agenda. Staff presented the request, and indicated that the applicant, since he had made a written request seeking a deferral of the hearing of his request, was not present; however, that the applicant's engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, was present. Commissioner Chachere, noting that the applicant had specifically sought a deferral in order for him to have an opportunity to meet with the Birchwood neighbors, asked Ms. Roberts if she thought such a meeting would be productive. Ms. Roberts stated that it would not; that she did not feel that anything productive could come from trying to meet with the applicant. She related that the applicant had been involved in a number of development proposals on land which affected Birchwood neighbors, and Birchwood neighbors did not have confidence in the applicant to meet his obligations to the neighborhood. She said that the applicant was familiar with both who to contact in Birchwood and how to contact these persons, and that, to date, he had made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the subject matter. Staff reported that the applicant had indicated to staff in his application that he proposed to work with the neighborhood to deal with some problems the neighborhood had with the originally approved PCD; e.g., to replace the erected "shadow-box" fence with a solid board fence; to increase the landscaping in the northern buffer area; and, to correct a drainage problem at the north property line. Staff related that the applicant had said that he thought the neighborhood would accept the proposed amendment to the PCD if he were to accomplish these changes. Staff's recommendation, then, was based on this representation from the applicant, and the staff recommendation was for denial of the encroachment into the buffer, unless the neighbors were satisfied with the proposed means of mitigating the effects on the neighborhood. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson interjected that, since the applicant had not met with and gotten concurrence with the neighbors on the means of dealing with the effect on the neighborhood, the staff recommendation was for denial of the amended PCD. December 12, 1995 SUDIVISIO ITEM (Continued) FILE NO-: Z -5787-A Mr. McGetrick reported that he had contacted Mr. Rees, but -that Mr. Rees would not be able to be present. He said that Mr. Rees had met with a couple of the Birchwood neighbors on the preceding Friday, and desired to hold additional meetings and to address neighborhood concerns. He amended the requested deferral to the January 30th. Commission hearing. Commissioner Daniel related that many of the concessions which had been presented to Birchwood residents by the Best Buy developers not been accomplished, and that Best Buy had told him that, because the agreed -to concessions had not been included in the PCD Ordinance, they did not have to do them. He said that if he were going to support anything proposed by Best Buy on the site, the Ordinance would have to be comprehensive, and would have to include every detail of the agreement. Mr. Fred Cason, indicating that he lives in the house which abuts the northeast corner of the Best Buy tract, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. He said that the original PCD was incomplete; that there are issues remaining unresolved from the original PCD development: 1) that the drainage is not right; 2) that the "shadow-box" fence is not the privacy fence which was promised; and 3) that the landscaping on the embankment is not what was promised. He said that the original PCD needs to be completed prior to beginning a new project. He maintained that Mr. Rees is using the promise to deal with deficiencies from the original PCD as a "bargaining chip" to gain support from the neighborhood for the new proposal. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reported that Mr. Cason had made him aware of the inadequacy of the drainage system behind Mr. Cason's property, and that the contractor on the project has been directed to make the modifications necessary for the system to perform correctly. He reported that the contractor's maintenance bond was a guarantee for the performance of all systems installed. Ms. Roberts spoke in opposition to the proposed amended PCD. She said that, in order to build the Best Buy site, serious earth moving was done by the contractor, and a "mountain" was built which stands approximately 20 feet above the original grade and drops off in an embankment behind her home and Mr. Cason's home. The Best Buy building, she continued, occupied the south portion of the lot; a second building, originally to be the Toys -R -Us building, was to be constructed up to the north edge of the embankment. She maintained that the buffer between the neighborhood and the development was to have been a 50 foot "undisturbed" buffer, but that it had been "disturbed" in order to build the "mountain". She maintained that a solid wood fence was supposed to have been built at top edge of the embankment, but that a "shadow-box" fence was installed, instead, and it was 7 December 12, 1995 SVBDIVI�IQ ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A installed mid -way up the slope of the embankment. She explained that she had called Jim Lawson, Neighborhoods and Planning Director, regarding the matter, and that Mr. Lawson had "twisted arms" to get a second fence installed which is a solid fence at the top of the embankment. This second fence, she said, met the requirements of blocking being able to see the Best Buy building, blocking sound, and keeping trash from blowing off the parking lot into the neighborhood. She went on to say, though, that, in order to build a building which extends 10 feet further north than was originally planned, the 50 foot buffer will have to be "disturbed" and the north wall of the building will have to be on "stilts", since the embankment drops off at the original building line. She said that the neighborhood had fought for the 50 foot buffer, and, even though it is not great, it is unacceptable to propose to make it less. She stated that Best Buy uses a good portion of the parking on the site, and that to add two more retail stores to the site would overload the parking lot. She complained that when PCD's are established and the requirements set, these requirements should be able to be relied on. Instead, she said, they are always changing, and neighbors have to keep coming back and fighting for the requirements they fought for originally. She urged the Commission to deny the amended PCD request. She said that she had made arrangements for child care and to be present, and that the applicant not being present should not keep the Commission from voting to deny the application. Commissioner Lichty asked Ms. Roberts is anything could be done by the applicant to mitigate the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer, to which Ms. Roberts responded, "absolutely nothing". Mr. Ken Davis, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. Mr. Floyd Boyd, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. He said that the applicant had consistently come before the Commission asking for more than could be accommodated on the various sites, or asking to change and add to previously approved plans. A motion was made to deny the application; however, Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles advised the Commissioners that the motion should be in the affirmative, a motion to approve the requested amended PCD. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question, and the approval of the amended PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 absent. 8 I C. "-Lo 1995 V TEM r� southward across W. R-2 zoned land. FILE No. ;_� Markham St. To the east and north, is ERI TILITY MME T Public Works comments: Can the Preliminary plat' provide the base flood elevation and the structures to bproposed minimum floor elevations e constxuGted of on the propert must be provided before the applicant his development permit. obtains an FHA Water courses entering the tract and the Points for draina9e are planned exit drainage courses leavingtothe e shown. Rights_Of-wa site must be for A stormwater detention dedarcated analysis is required. West Markham St. is a minor arterial waY and the width of and the right -of - conform to Master pavement for W. Mark -ham will be Street pl azn 5t. must required along the Wim. Markham is frontage sidewalk f lk the lots Constr-uct the common access drive to commercial street standards (3.5 feet of street width, Plus sidewalks on each side of the street.) Water works comments that Water W which includes the 1 arks owns a Of the 39 and 20 feet north of and 3pgfeet£sway' raw water main. Water works will have to any construction in the right_of-way, and no build' be allowed in this area. approve �n9' wi ],1 Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. along the W. Markhamwill require a 15 foot 15 foot easement St. frontage of the subdiviszanedsement Zine ent, along the north side of the 3v and a easeaa raw water Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approYed the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone elephone Co. noted that easements will b required. e The Fire Department approved the submittal. E