Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5787 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: March 15, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-5787 3_ Reauest: Establishment of Appletree Commercial Subdivision Long -form PCD 4. Location: Northeast corner of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway 5. Owner/Applicant: Appletree Investment Company 6. Existing Status: R-2 and 0-1 7. Proposed Use: Retail Shopping Center 8. Staff Recommendation: Approved 9. Planning commission Recommendation: Approved 10. Conditions or Issues Remainin to be Resorred: Abandonment of a portion of Alamo Circle and Shadecrest Drive and abandonment of various utility easements 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 0 abstentions and 1 open position 13. Objectors: Birchwood Neighborhood Association 14. Neighborhood Plan: Rodney Parham (2) FILE NO.: Z-5787 NAME: APPLETREE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION -- LONG -FORM PCD AND EXCLUSIVE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF ALAMO CIRCLE AND SHADECREST DRIVE AND ABANDONMENT OF VARIOUS UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATION: At the Northeast Corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: EUGINEER: APPLETREE INVESTMENT CO. DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 201 E. Markham St., Suite 100 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72205 374-1554 221-7880 AREA: 7.749 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-1 & R-2 to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 4.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD for the development of a two -lot commercial subdivision on a 7.749 acre tract. The proposed uses for the PCD are Best Buy with 44,844 square feet within the proposed building and Toys -R -IIs with 30,625 square feet. Parking for 362 vehicles is shown on the site plan. Compliance with the landscape and buffer ordinance is anticipated. The site development will involve the recombination of a number of lots in the Montclair Heights Subdivision and will necessitate abandonment of undeveloped street rights-of-way and easements within the area. Fifteen lots or portions thereof are to be combined into two larger lots. Alamo Circle south of Birchwood Drive and Shadecrest Drive are to be abandoned. Existing utility easements are to be abandoned and new easements, as needed, are to be dedicated. Right-of-way along Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road, as needed to meet Master Street Plan requirements, is to be dedicated. Construction of the additional lane/acceleration lane along Chenal Parkway to meet the Master Street Plan requirements is proposed. FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD to entail development of a 7.749 acre site for retail -commercial uses. Necessitated by this development is the abandonment of two of the internal streets and utility easements which were platted as part of the Montclair Heights Subdivision (Phase II), and abandonment of these is requested. No variances or waivers are requested. The applicant requests approval of a PCD for the two specific retail -commercial uses shown on the site plan: Best Buy and Toys -R -IIs. Best Buy is shown to occupy 44,844 square feet in the proposed building; Toys -R -Us, 30,625. Two lots are proposed. The Best Buy lot would contain 4.286 acres; the Toys -R -Us, 3.366 acres. Parking for a total of 362 vehicles is anticipated. Buffering of the site from the Birchwood Addition to the north is proposed, as is buffering of the commercial site from the residentially zoned property to the east. To assist in buffering the site from the Birchwood residences to the north, the truck dock and compactor facility for Toys -R -IIs are proposed to be enclosed within the building. The truck dock on the south, for Best Buy, is proposed to be screened with a masonry wall and the compactor is proposed to be screened with a 9 foot high privacy fence. Conformance with the landscape ordinance is anticipated. The applicant indicates that the additional lane/acceleration lane on Chenal Parkway is to be constructed. Improvements to Bowman Road are to be made to conform to Master Street Plan requirements. Participation is anticipated with property owners in Birchwood Subdivision, whose property abut the portion of unopened Birchwood Drive which lies along the north property line of the site, to abandon that portion of the right-of-way. The undeveloped internal streets within the site are proposed to be abandoned. Alamo Circle, from Birchwood Drive south to Shadecrest Drive, and Shadecrest Drive, from Alamo Circle to its termination at the eastern edge of the site, are to be abandoned. The abandonment would involve the right-of-way and easements. The internal and boundary utility easements are to be abandoned, then, any needed utility easements as identified by the utility companies are to be dedicated in the new plat. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently primarily undeveloped; however, there are three single family residences which face Bowman Road_. At the center of the site are two unimproved street rights-of-way for Alamo Circle and Shadecrest Drive, and the K FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) undeveloped portion of the site faces onto these rights-of-way or onto Chenal Blvd. on the south. The site, excluding the homesites, is wooded with heavy undergrowth. The terrain slopes down from Bowman Road towards the east. The current zoning of the site is R-2, with an 0-3 area at the Bowman Road-Chenal Parkway intersection. The new Home Quarters site is immediately across Chenal Parkway to the south. Catercorner to the southwest is the new Wal-Mart site. Across Bowman Road to the west is C-3 zoned property. To the north, at the northwest corner of the site, is a C-1 zoned tract. An unimproved portion of Birchwood Drive separates the proposed PCD site from the C-1 zoned tract; however, this right-of-way is in the process of being abandoned. Also abutting the site to the north is an improved portion of Birchwood Drive which terminates at the unimproved portion of the street. The street improvements in this area are anticipated to be removed and the site reclaimed as buffer area. The remainder of the perimeter to the north is the Birchwood subdivision with three (3) homes abutting the site. Along the east property line of the site is the remaining R-2 zone of which the proposed development was a part. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office will require a traffic study be performed and submitted for review. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. The applicant will need to contact the state for the NPDES permit. Water Works reports that there is no objection to the abandonment of the internal rights-of-way and easements. The developer needs to contact the Water Works offices with information on whether the proposed buildings are to be sprinklered and whether the water lines are to be public or private. The Fire Department will need to determine whether fire hydrants are properly located. There is a $12.00 per front foot charge which may apply along Bowman Rd. Wastewater Utility reports that there is no objection to the abandonment of the internal rights-of-way or easements. A sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement along the west property line. ARRLA Gas Co. approved the plan without comment. The Fire Department will require that "No Parking, Tow Away" signs be placed along the west side/in front of the building. Also, an additional fire hydrant will be required on the east side of the building so that there is a fire hydrant every 400 feet. 3 FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that the screening fence along the eastern and northern perimeters must be a minimum of 6 feet in height, opaque, and with its structural supports on the inside. The d ppstg�r area must be enclosed with an 8 foot high opaque wall or fence on three sides. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The narrative description is inadequate. It needs to describe the character of the development and include the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. The uses which have been submitted are for "Best Buy" and "Toys -R -IIs". Unless the project narrative is amended to include other retail -commercial uses, then these two uses are the only uses which will be permitted in the PCD without an amendment to the PCD ordinance. The applicant needs to review uses which might be alternative uses for the site and amend the narrative. The preliminary plat and the proposed Bill of Assurance have not been submitted. The Birchwood Drive right-of-way which abuts the site on the north will need to be abandoned. The existing street improvements will need to be removed, curb and gutter and paving provided to terminate Birchwood Dr., and the land in the -remaining right-of-way and in the abandoned right-of-way landscaped. Since this was not a part of the original application, but is an added aspect of the application, and, since it may take more time to get the required signatures on the petitions and request the public hearing before the Board of Directors than the original time -frame anticipated, this added requirement may need to be a condition of the approval. The Planning staff indicates that the proposed development is in the I-430 Planning District, and the proposed use is in conformance with the plan. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use of the site for in conformance with the Land Use plan has only minor deficiencies staff and the utility companies. corrected or added can easily be applicant. 4 retail -commercial uses is Plan. The site development which have been noted by Any remaining items to be accomplished by the FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to completing the requirements for the abandonment of Birchwood Drive and complying with the staff and utility comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Representatives of the applicant and of the engineer were present. Staff presented the request; the applicant reviewed the items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Robert Brown, with DCI, mentioned that some modifications to the plan would be made to address concerns indicated. The deficiencies in the submittal would be corrected. Mr. Brown indicated, however, that the requirement to pursue the abandonment of the remaining portion of the Birchwood Drive right-of-way which abuts the site would take more time to prepare than is available prior to the Planning Commission hearing. He was concerned that the additional requirement not delay the approval. It was suggested by staff that pursuing the abandonment issue could be a condition of the approval. Following this discussion and the review by the Committee members present, the Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted an acceptable project narrative, and had added to the list of requested uses additional C-3 uses to include: book or stationery store; clothing store; drugstore or pharmacy; furniture store, hobby shop; lawn and garden center, enclosed; office; office equipment and sales; theater; and, (enclosed) retail uses not listed. All other required information and exhibits have, staff reported, been received, including information that: 1) the loading dock/compactor for the Toys R IIs will be enclosed as part of the building, with a roof and walls to enclose this area to the extent allowed by regulatory agencies; 2) the compactor will operate during daylight hours only; 3) parking lot and outside lighting will be designed to have minimal impact on the abutting neighborhood; and, 4) work is under way to abandon the remaining Birchwood Drive, at which the applicant will remove the existing improvements and provide landscaping as required. Staff reported that the documentation which has been submitted for Planning Commission review of the interior streets and the easements abandonments has omitted the documents for the abandonment of Alamo Circle and of the east boundary easement. Therefore, staff related, the Commission will make its - 5 FILE NO.: Z-57$7 (Continued) recommendation on only Shadecrest Drive and on the internal easements. The applicant, staff reported, is submitting the Alamo Circle abandonment directly to the Board of Directors under the provision for adversarial abandonment. Staff recommended that the applicant consider relocating the Toys R Us loading dock/compactor to an area between the two stores. Staff recommended approval of the application and of the additional proposed uses. A representative for the applicant, David Simmons, an architect, presented the application. Mr. Simmons introduced Jim Eubanks, an architect on the project, Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, the engineering firm for the project, and Ernie Peters, the traffic engineering consultant. Mr. Simmons presented an overview of the project, mentioning: that the project included two users, Best Buy and Toys R Us, but that the developers' contract was with Best Buy who is, in turn, negotiating with Toys R Us; that the listing of requested uses had been amended to include those cited by staff; that there would be no outparcels in the development; that the proposed development is the smallest of those on the other corners where development is taking place; that the minimum required buffers, as required by the Landscape Ordinance, have been satisfied; that the developer will plant trees and scrubs to block the view of the development from the adjoining neighborhood; that lighting will be designed to shine toward the site and away from the neighborhood; that stormwater run-off will be directed towards Chenal Parkway and away from the neighborhood; that the design of the site was accomplished to minimally affect the adjoining neighborhood; that, to accommodate the neighborhood's request, the loading dock/compactor has been enclosed in the building; and, that the two stores, Best Buy and Toys R Us, furnished the developer with prototype building footprints, and indicated that these footprints were those they wished to construct at the Little Rock location. Commissioner Oleson asked if the developer had considered relocating the loading dock as suggested by staff. Mr. Simmons responded that this could not be done; that Best Buy and Toys R Us has related that, because of children circulating between the two stores, the loading dock cannot be located between the two stores. It would be unsafe. At the back of the store, it is felt that the noise would be worse and be directed more towards the neighborhood. The grades at the rear of the site would also prohibit the location there. Director Lawson explained that the staff feels that the impact on the neighborhood needs to be minimized; that there are three _ homes in Birchwood which will be most directly affected. The location of the dock is in need of attention; that it needs to be 6 FILE NO_: Z-5787 !Continued? moved to a location further away from the homes, either between the buildings or behind the buildings. He suggested that tractor -trailer trucks do not typically turn their engines off while unloading, and it will be noisy. He suggested that the prototype footprints might not be "fixed", and that the buildings might be able to be made narrower and deeper to allow them to fit on the site and still leave more room at the north. Mr. Simmons responded that the buildings cannot be moved further south, and that the prototype building footprints cannot be adjusted. Chairperson Chachere asked why the dock could not be located at the rear of the building. Mr. Simmons explained that the grades are too severe and that a truck cannot back the distances off Chenal that would be required; that such a location is not feasible. Mrs. Chachere responded that the developer needs to take the impact of traffic off the neighborhood. They need relief from the noise. Mr. Robert Brown reiterated that the slopes at the rear are steep, and that a stormwater detention pond is located there. To accomplish moving the dock to the rear, a large retaining wall would be required. He also mentioned that if a truck were to stage itself off Chenal in preparation for backing north to the dock, it would cause traffic congestion and an unsafe situation for traffic exiting Chenal. Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification on the situation of the enclosed dock. Mr. Brown responded that the enclosure would enclose the entire truck and that the facade would be a part of the building facade; that the roof would be a continuation of the building roof, and the wall height would be the same as the building's. He added that the trucks would not be left running since they would be inside the building. �ir. Putnam asked about the times of unloading. Mr. Simmons explained that unloading is accomplished during the hours of operation, and not at night. The developer could commit to that. Commissioner Oleson asked if that meant when the regular employees were there or from when someone opens the door in the morning to when the cleaning people are there at night. Mr. Eubanks responded that the trucks come in before the store opens in the morning, but that the store opens at 10:00; so, trucks will be coming in sometime before that.—The dumpster will operate only during daylight hours. 7 FILE NO.: Z-5787 Continued Commissioner Oleson asked about the theater, and commented that this is not "light retail". Chairperson Chachere called on citizens who were present at the meeting, and asked for comments from those who supported the project. Mrs. Sara Stephens asked for the Commission's support for the project. The opponents were then called on by Chairperson Chachere. Scott Robert introduced himself as president of the neighborhood association. He presented an overview of the situation from his and the neighborhood's viewpoint: that the land is zoned residential, with an office zoned area at the corner of Chenal and Bowman; the land use plan projects a commercial use at the corner of Chenal and Bowman and Chenal and Autumn, with mixed office and commercial on the rest of the land between the two streets, and that commercial is logical for the Best Buy -Toys R IIs site; that the neighborhood is resigned to that; and, that the job of the neighborhood was to try to find the most suitable commercial use for the site. He related that the neighborhood sees lots of good things about the proposal and that they would like to support it. They like the types of business, although they don't like the idea of the theater use which has been proposed. They like the idea that there are no outparcels. They like the fact that, with the commercial development at the corner, the rest of the interior of the site will be office uses. on the other hand, the neighborhood does not like the fact that the north side of the building is just 46 feet off the property line, which means that the building is only 60 feet away from the rear of the closest house. The Land Use Plan, Mr. Robert suggested, calls for a 50 foot buffer along the north property line of the site, and the proposed site plan abandons the buffer. The 2:1 -slope rising from the north property line southward to the building will, the neighborhood feels, cause a water run-off problem to those whose property abut the slope. Mr. Robert commented that the neighborhood cannot support the proposal with these concerns unaddressed; that they can support it with adjustments. He and others from the neighborhood had, he suggested, tried to seek an agreement from the developer to make the changes in the proposal, but the developer was not willing to compromise; in fact, he reported, the developer was unwilling to make any changes. Mr. Robert went on to say that the developer had agreed to locate the privacy fence at the top of the slope rather than at the property line to afford the needed benefit from the fence. Mr. Robert then presented his suggested layout of the site. _ Mr. Ken Davis, an officer in the neighborhood association organization, passed the proposed sketch to the Commissioners for E-1 FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) a close-up inspection of it. Mr. Robert related that, with only slight adjustments, the interests of the neighborhood could be preserved. His sketch, he related, had the same square footage of buildings and almost the same number of parking spaces. He proposed to make the buildings narrower but deeper, so that there was more space between the buildings and the north property line. The north corner of the building was, he indicated, moved 50 feet further south. This permitted the retention of a 50 foot undisturbed buffer. It also had the benefit of not disturbing a natural spring which would have otherwise have had to be dealt with; and, it would not require as much fill at the north west corner of the site as the way the developer had proposed. There had, Mr. Robert complained, been no response from the developer to the neighborhood's suggestions. Chairperson Chachere questioned Mr. Robert, asking if the suggested changes had been presented to the applicant. Mr. Robert responded that the developer had indicated that they could not make the suggested changes; that the narrower, deeper stores do not meet the prototypes which is being required by the stores. Mrs. Chachere asked the developer if they would like an opportunity to visit with Mr. Robert and see if the suggested modifications were workable. Mr. Simmons responded that the suggestions presented by Mr. Robert could not be accommodated, and that they were "blindsided" by the presentation. Commissioner Woods interjected that a non-professional cannot design the footprint of a building; that there are codes and other requirements which have to be met. Commissioner McDonald added that the Commission cannot allow every opponent to have the freedom to redraw and redesign the applicants proposal. Commissioner Nicholson inquired about the statements by both Mr. Robert and Mr. Simmons that each is saying that they are both talking to a blank wall; that each is saying that the other is not responsive. Mr. Simmons responded that Mr. Robert is looking for the - concessions that Lowe's conceded, but that in the smaller scale project represented by the current application, there is not enough room to give a 50 foot undisturbed buffer and a 50 foot landscape buffer, and the building footprints cannot be modified. Commissioner Putnam counseled Mr. Simmons that the applicant needed to make some concessions. Since the neighborhood supported the proposed uses, the applicant needed to make some adjustments. 9 FILE NO.: Z-5787(Continued) Commissioner McDonald said that he could support the staff recommendation and was ready for the vote on the matter. Mr. Simmons added that the drainage concern by the neighborhood is not a legitimate issue. There is no stormwater run-off onto the neighboring property to the north. The applicants, he continued, would agree to deleting the theater from the requested uses, but the buildings, he concluded, could not be changed. Commissioner Oleson reacted that the removal of the theater was a good response, but observed that the 60 foot distance from the building to the closest house was not a lot of separation. Mr. Robert Brown interjected that the house is more than 60 feet away. Commissioner Walker asked for confirmation that the developer proposed no openings in the north and east exterior walls of the building, and that the enclosed loading dock was to be the same facade as the rest of the building. Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Walker that this was correct. Mr. Walker observed that such a wall with no openings, then, according to the Ordinance, acted as a buffer. Mr. Brown explained that there would be a little narrow undisturbed area along the north property line, and that trees would be planted up the slope of the fill. The trees would be higher, then, as they are planted up the slope, and that this would give the effect of higher trees and more buffering. Mr. Walker asked for clarification that the buildings could not be moved further south. Mr. Brown said that the Best Buy and Toys R IIs people had furnished the developers with the prototype stores, and the developer had to meet the requested conditions. There was no room along the south property line to move the building substantially. Mr. Hop Brown, the staff landscaping review specialist, related that the required buffer along the north property line to meet the landscaping buffer ordinance requirements is 28 feet,- and that the wall of the building, since there are no openings other than those required by the Fire Department, would count as a screening wall. Commissioner Willis asked whether the developer proposed to provide an acceleration lane on Bowman off Chenal. Mr. Peters responded that the development did not justify making such a requirement. 10 FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer, agreed that there was no justification to impose the costs of such a requirement on this development. Commissioner McDonald again suggested that the Commission accept the staff recommendation and move to a vote. Mr. Roberts asked, instead, that the matter be deferred in order for the developer to inquire of the Best Buy and Toys R IIs people if the building could be modified to provide the 50 foot undisturbed buffer and a 50 foot landscaping buffer. Commissioner Nicholson suggested that the Commission approve the plan with the stipulation that the neighborhood and applicant reach a compromise prior to the matter being heard by the Board of Directors. Director Lawson suggested that the plan be approved contingent upon the developer providing a 50 foot landscape buffer along the north property line. Commissioner Nicholson summarized the conditions: that the building would be moved south so that there would be a minimum 50 foot landscaped buffer along the north property line; that the theater was not part of the request; that water run-off is not to impact the neighborhood; and that the fence would be located at the top of the slope. Deputy City Attorney advised that such a motion would be appropriate. Commissioner McDonald moved to approve the P.C.D. contingent upon the developer meeting the stated requirements. Chairperson Chachere returned to the cards of those who were in opposition to the development. She called on Patty Roberts who responded that she had nothing to add. She called on Norman Kingrey who complained that the developer did not want to give anything. Mrs. Chachere asked the developer if they could accept the conditions mentioned: the 50 foot buffer, the location of the fence, no theater, water not being a problem to the neighborhood. Mrs. Ruth Bell made an inquiry about traffic, saying that in the Lowe's application it was a concern of traffic engineering and in this application it is not. why, she asked? 11 FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Contin Mr. Henry answered that the current developer is providing exactly the same street improvements along their boundary which were being imposed on Lowe's, yet the current proposal does not involve outparcels. Commissioner Willis returned to a question about whether an acceleration lane was being provided off Chenal onto north -bound Bowman Rd. Mr. Henry replied that drivers do not use acceleration lanes; they approach an intersection and wait at the intersection for traffic to clear before entering the intersection, instead of driving onto the acceleration lane and merging with moving traffic. Therefore, he continued, traffic engineering no longer requires acceleration lanes and, instead, requires a larger radius at major intersections. The addition of another lane is not justified by the development of the Best Buy/Toys R IIs site. Mrs. Bell asked whether the application specified that only two uses would be allowed on the site, or whether, in the event one or both of the proposed uses should close, multiple uses could occupy the buildings? If so, would that cause more traffic? Mr. Lawson explained that there would be no restriction on the number of uses at one time, and that retail space, whether it is one use or multiple use, still generates the same amount of traffic per square foot, at least as far as the regulations are concerned, and the traffic for the building in question would generate the same amount of projected traffic whether it had one tenant or many. Chairperson Chachere reported that there was a motion and a second on the floor; that the motion was for approval with the condition that a 50 foot landscape buffer be provided along the north property line and that the buffer be designated on the plan; that the fence be located at the top of the slope rather than at the property line; that there be no run-off of storm water onto the property to the north; and, that the request for a theater be deleted from the applicant's request. Mr. Lawson clarified the understandings on the buffer: the buffer is to be a landscape buffer, not an undisturbed buffer, but when it is designated on the plan as a buffer, it has the same effect and is just as enforceable as a zoned buffer.. Commissioner Walker interjected that with the designation of the buffer on the plan, as the buffer is planted and ages, the effect of a natural buffer will be achieved and the natural buffer will be restored. In the future, then, this restored buffer cannot be disturbed. Mr. Simmons agreed with the conditions of the motion and Mr. Robert Brown said that the building can be shifted enough to provide the 50 foot buffer. 12 FILE NO.: Z-5787 (Continued) Chairperson Chachere then posed the question, and the motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, one no, one absent, and one open position. 13