Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5787-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5787-C NAME: Whole Foods Revised Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road DEVELOPER: Whole Foods c/o Charlie Oates Oates Commercial Property 5865 Ridgeway Parkway Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.5 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: 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) within the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PCD PROPOSED USE: Add grocery as an allowable use VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: 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. The approval allowed a two -lot commercial subdivision located on 7.749 acres. The proposed uses for the PCD were Best Buy with 44,844 square feet within the proposed building and "Toys -R -Us" with 30,625 square feet. The Best Buy lot FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont. was to contain 4.286 acres and the "Toys -R -Us" lot to contain 3.366 acres. Parking for 362 vehicles was shown on the site plan. At the time of approval, the intended user was "Toys -R -Us", 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) within the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. 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 PCD site and the residential use to the north. The north 24 feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area, and it was to be enclosed within the fagade of the building, with the restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The main fagade 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 required that the building colors on the north fagade be "neutral tones". The 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 Sunday. The negotiations between the developer and "Toys -R -Us" broke down and "Toys -R -Us" elected to locate in a different area of West Little Rock. When "Toys -R -Us" 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 were provided, were allowed 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 served as a substitute for the wall. On December 12, 1995, the Little Rock Planning Commission denied a request to amend the previously approved PCD to allow a modification in the building footprint for the Lot 1 building and to allow the occupant of the building to serve refreshments to customers as an accessory use to the primary retail user. Instead of a single tenant space, two (2) tenant spaces were proposed. The building setback along the northern property line was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. On April 26, 1996, the Assistant City Manager approved a request to increase the building area for the proposed north building (Lot 1) located north of Best Buy. The approval allowed the construction of a 150 foot (north to south) by 212 foot building (east to west), with a 22 foot wide loading dock. The occupant of the building was Linen's -N -Things. On June 4, 1996, the Assistant City Manager approved a revision to the site plan to allow the placement of a free standing canopy on the front of the building. The canopy was not to be enclosed heated and cooled space. The purpose was to serve as shelter for customers. The construction was a roof structure with four support poles and not an addition to the building space. 2 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is now proposing to amend the approved PCD for the Lot 1 of the Appletree Subdivision, Linen's -N -Things. The request is to add a food store as an allowable use maintaining the previously approved uses. As a separate item on this agenda the applicant was requesting to amend the Master Street Plan to allow a median break with a left turn lane into the Best Buy driveway along Chenal Parkway. The median cut would allow for left turns only into the development. The applicant has since withdrawn this request. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area has developed with commercial uses including restaurants, big box retail, small retail users and a tire store. Best Buy occupies the building located to the south of the building proposed for rezoning. There is a church currently occupying the space proposed for the grocery. North of the site is a residential subdivision, the Birchwood Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar Height/Point West/Timber Ridge Property Owners Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Current traffic volumes on Chenal Parkway between Bowman Road and Autumn Road exceed 35,000 trips per day. 3. Adequate left turn access is provided at the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway. 4. The addition of a left turn lane as proposed creates a very hazardous access due to traffic having to turn left across three (3) lanes of traffic. There are insufficient gaps in traffic to safely make a left turn maneuver across three (3) lanes of traffic. Other locations on Chenal Parkway have been converted to left turn protected by arrow only due to high accident numbers, such as Markham Street and Chenal Parkway. 9 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. 5. The proposed left turn lane is too close to the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway and its proximity will result in blocking of the eastbound through traffic lanes resulting in added congestion and an increase in rear end collisions in this area. 6. Median cuts are prohibited by the design requirements, which are adopted by Ordinances #14,210 and #15,239. 7. Chenal Parkway Design requires a minimum of 600 feet between median openings to provide adequate left turn storage for vehicles. There is less than 500 feet between Bowman Road and the proposed median cut. 8. The intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway extends 465 feet to the east, thus leaving no room for adequate left turn storage for the proposed access. Left turning vehicles will block eastbound Chenal Parkway traffic on a corridor that is already over capacity. E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (July 11, 2012) Mr. John Reese and Mr. Joe White were present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff stated the previous approval established minimum building setbacks, required buffering and limits on the hours of delivery and dumpster/compactor service. Staff questioned if these items would continue to apply to the new user. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated as a separate item on the agenda there was a request to amend the Master Street Plan to allow a median break on Chenal Parkway at the Best Buy entrance drive. Staff stated this was not desirable due to the proximity of the intersection of Bowman Road and the limited amount of stack that Gould be provided on Chenal Parkway at this location. Mr. White stated there were other median breaks along Chenal Parkway. Staff stated there were fewer vehicles traveling the Parkway at these other locations and the impact on traffic flow was much less. Staff stated there was a protected left turn at the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway which would allow entry into the site. There was a general discussion concerning the driveway from the site onto Bowman Road. Mr. White stated this driveway would be improved with the redevelopment of the site. Staff noted the existing screening fence and landscaping was to be in good condition and any dead, diseased or missing landscaping was to be replaced. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont F. ANALYSIS: There were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request raised at the July 11, 2012, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant submitted a request dated July 19, 2012, requesting withdrawal of the Master Street Plan amendment (Item #17 File No. MSP -12-04). The applicant is requesting to amend the listing of previously approved uses to include a food store as an allowable use. Currently there are no revisions proposed to the existing building but the applicant has indicated additional space may be desired in the future. According to the applicant the existing 50 -foot buffer along the northern portion of the site would be maintained. The additional square footage would be accomplished by enclosing the 22 -foot by 60 -foot area along the northwestern portion of the building and/or enclosing a portion of the loading dock area. There are 148 parking spaces on this lot. Per the Zoning Ordinance parking for a food store, supermarket or convenience type grocery store is four (4) spaces plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, exclusive of the storage area. The building contains 32,460 square feet with a potential expansion area totaling 5,060 square feet for a total gross floor area of 37,520 square feet. Based on the typical minimum parking requirements a total of 125 parking spaces would be required including areas proposed for storage. There are three existing shared ground sign locations on the two lots. There is a monument sign located at the entrance drive to Best Buy on Chenal Parkway and one on Bowman Road at the entrance drive. The sign is a monument sign which appears to comply with the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay District or eight feet in height and one hundred square feet in area. There is a pole sign located on Bowman Road. The sign appears to be comparable to signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of 36 -feet in height and 160 square feet in area. Building signage for this lot is limited to the front fagade of the building. The signage appears to comply with signage allowed in commercial zones or a maximum of ten (10) percent of the front fagade area. The applicant has indicated there will not be a change in the existing signage locations or areas. Only the sign faces will be changed to advertise the new tenant. Staff is supportive of the request to add a food store to the allowable uses for this site. Staff does not feel the addition of the food store as an allowable use will significantly impact the area. The applicant has stated all previously imposed conditions continue to apply to the site. 5 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to add a food store as an allowable use subject to compliance with the following comments: 1. Compliance with the comments in paragraph D of the above write-up. 2. Compliance with all previously imposed conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 2, 2012) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. The Chair informed the applicant when there were eight or fewer Commissioners present the Commission's policy was to allow the applicant the option of deferral to a later hearing date. Mr. White stated he desired to defer the item to the September 13, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the deferral request. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has stated they are continuing to work with the Birchwood Neighborhood Association concerning proposed modifications to the existing building and additions to the site plan. Staff recommends deferral of this item to the October 25, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had stated they are continuing to work with the Birchwood Neighborhood Association concerning proposed modifications to the existing building and additions to the site plan. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the October 25, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. STAFF UPDATE: Staff meet with the owner, the owners representative and members representing the Neighborhood Association concerning this request on October 15, 2012. Based on information provided to staff at this meeting staff requests this item be deferred to the December 13, 2012, public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - (OCTOBER 25, 2012) Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating they had met with the owner, the owner's representative and members representing the Neighborhood Association concerning this request on October 15, 2012. Staff stated based on information provided to staff at this meeting they were requesting this item be deferred to the December 13, 2012, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff amending the application request. The following bullets outline the amendments as requested by the applicant: • The approval is limited to Whole Foods and not transferable to any other grocery user. • The developer is requesting a traffic signal be placed on Bowman Road at the shopping center entrance to allow traffic to more ease in accessing/exiting the site. According to the developer with a very popular grocery store and as many visits as Whole Foods believes will be coming to the intersection they believe this is extremely important in allowing Whole Foods to be successful at this location. The developer plans to enlarge the entrance to the site on Bowman Road making a right and left hand turn out of the center and one turn into the center. This is not an issue for the Planning Commission to consider. The placement of traffic signals are items specifically addressed by the City's Traffic Engineer and based on determinations of warrants. The City's Traffic Engineer will determine if/and when warrants are met. • Expand the existing dock area by 20 -feet to the north and replace the existing wood fence with a concrete block wall (see drawing). The wall will be 10 -feet high and approximately 120 -feet long. At the end of the block wall the developer will construct a new 8 -foot wood fence that will extend to the commercial area in the front of the site and then turn and run north approximately 50 -feet until the fence connects to the commercial area on Bowman Road (see site plan). 7 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont. • Plant Leland Cyprus or similar evergreen screening plants starting at the rear of the dock area placed 15 -feet on center and placed 8 -feet from the concrete block wall and continuing as shown on the site plan in front of the new 8 -foot solid wooden fence to allow additional screening along the northern border with the neighborhood. • As the dock area is increased the developer will add storm drainage grates in the concrete and direct all of the rain water that will fall on the dock area which will be routed either to the front of the development into the existing storm drainage culverts or to the back of the property (to the east as it presently drains) and away from the Birchwood Neighborhood. ■ Move the existing electrical transformer forward by approximately 100 -feet to the green area at the front of the site nearer to the commercial development on Bowman Road, (see site plan). • Move the present 8 -yard dumpster from its present location to inside the dock area and in front of the compactor that Whole Foods plans to use at this location. This should eliminate any more problems with the dumpster at that location since it will be kept cleaner and it will more than likely be smaller than the present 8 - yard dumpster. • Whole Foods has agreed to not empty the dumpster or run the compactor except during the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm daily. The dumpster will be picked up three (3) times per week with the same hours as above and Whole Foods has agreed to only run the compactor no more than three (3) times per day. The decibels for the compactor are between 60 to 75 decibels and the run time is less than one (1) minute each time it compacts trash. (A lawn mower has a decibels noise level of 105 decibels). The developer feels the noise level will be minimal since it will be behind a concrete block wall and the closest homes are more than 100 feet away. The revised plan includes extending the northern fagade of the building, adjacent to the existing truck dock, 20 -feet by the length of the building. The wall will be constructed as a 10 -foot tall masonry wall. As noted by the applicant Leyland Cypress or similar evergreen trees/shrubs will be placed on the northern side of the wall to visually break the massing of the wall and provide additional screening to the development. The purpose of the expansion is to relocate the existing dumpster, which is within the front parking area, to this screened enclosure and placed along side a proposed trash compactor proposed by the new tenant. Within the expansion area an additional 920 square feet of warehouse space will be gained. The applicant is also proposing an area of outdoor dining along the front of the building. The applicant has indicated there will be eight (8) to ten (10) tables with approximately twenty-five (25) chairs. There will be outdoor music within the patio area. The speakers will be located to direct sound into the outdoor dining area. Staff is supportive of the placement of the area for outdoor dining. The previous approval provided a 40 -foot planted buffer and slope transition area. The building setback was approved at 50 -feet. Within the setback/planted buffer an 8 -foot FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cant. wood fence was to be installed at the top of the slope which was located 30 -feet from the north property line. The buffer was not proposed to be an undisturbed buffer. Grading was allowed within almost the entire northern buffer area. Within the 40 -foot area trees and shrubs were replanted. The mix included hollies, hardwoods and pines both trees and saplings. Within the 20 -foot area proposed to be removed by the expansion the vegetation was removed, as was 95 percent of the entire northern buffer, and was replanted. Within this 20 -foot expansion area one (1) Northern Red Oak, five (5) Savannah Hollies and four (4) Loblolly Pines were to be installed. To meet the minimum ordinance requirement a 28 -foot land use buffer was required. As noted in the Background Section of the write-up the north 24 -feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area. Within the minute record of the February 8, 1994, Public Hearing the locating dock area was to be enclosed within the fagade of the building and to be located under -roof. It was noted by the applicant during the public hearing the roofline would be continuous from the building edge to the northern wall of the loading dock. The height of the loading dock wall was to be the same height as the building wall height. There was a restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The approved PCD restricted the hours of loading and operation of the compactor to daylight hours, and required that the building colors on the north fagade be "neutral tones". There were, among other site work requirements, requirements for limiting construction activities on Sunday. The stormwater drainage was to be collected and/or distributed to the east stored within a newly constructed detention pond located behind the building. The applicant has indicated within the newly expanded area stormwater will be collected and piped to the detention area located along the eastern side of the building. The applicant is requesting to not cover the loading dock area. This item was not constructed with the original development and staff can not find if and when this condition was removed as a requirement. According to the applicant leaving the area uncovered will allow for the development to contain rainwater and pipe the water to the east and into the stormwater detention pond. After reviewing the Bill of Assurance and Covenants on the property there is an existing covenant which prohibits grocery and/or food stores for this site. Although there are covenants in place to prohibit the grocery store the covenants are a private contract between the property owners. Staff is not supportive of allowing the expansion of the northern wall as proposed. Staff feels the buffer was put in place with the original approval to protect the homes located to the north. Staff does not feel conditions have changed and the neighborhood protection should be maintained. Staff is however supportive of allowing the revision to the PCD to add a grocery store as an allowable use to the property. As noted in the previous write-up staff does support a small expansion and allowing the area behind the loading dock to be enclosed and "squaring up" the building. 9 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 2012) Mr. John Reese was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial to the applicant's request to expand the store/loading dock area by moving the northern wall 20 -feet to the north. Staff stated they were in support of all other aspects of the development. Mr. John Reese addressed the Commission. He stated Whole Foods was looking to relocate from their current Rodney Parham Road site to this new site. He stated this new site would allow additional square footage and would allow for better visibility. He stated the current store had 9,500 trips per day and the new location was expected to generate 12,500 trips per day. He stated he and his engineer had met with the neighborhood and they had made a number of request in which the development was meeting. He stated the neighborhood had requested the six foot wood fence be removed and replaced with a masonry fence, which the development was doing. He stated the neighborhood had also requested the wood fence be replaced and constructed to eliminate foot traffic through the neighborhood. Mr. Reese stated the point of contention between staff was moving of the northern face of the building by 20 -feet to allow the loading dock area to be expanded. He stated the wall would be 10 -feet high and would replace and existing 6 -foot fence. He stated the need for expanding the dock area was to allow the trash compactor and the dumpster to be located within the loading dock area. He stated the proposed user was a grocery store which required a compactor to operate their business. He stated the neighborhood had requested the dock area be limited to a 33 -foot expansion area to resemble Fresh Market's dock area. He stated his user could not function with a 33 -foot dock area and needed to 40 -feet to allow for loading of the compactor from inside the store, relocating the trash dumpster within the dock area and allow for trucks adequate maneuvering area. Mr. Bill Ruck addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was three doors to the east of the development. He stated he agreed with staff and had concerns of the expansion would have negative impact on the adjacent homes. He stated he wanted Whole Foods to locate on site. He stated he felt there was a development plan which would allow for the trash compactor inside the building as well as maintain the buffer area. Ms. Joann Keith, Vice -President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had met with Mr. Reese and had offered suggestions but were not in agreement with his proposal. She stated the neighborhood was in support of Whole Foods but not in support of allowing an expansion. She stated the area was a quiet residential neighborhood. She stated in 1996 the Commission did not feel an expansion would be a benefit to the neighborhood and nothing had changed. She stated the reason there were not a number of residents in attendance in opposition was the residents depended on the officers of the neighborhood association to come down to City Hall and address their concerns. She stated she had visited both Whole Foods and Fresh Market and Fresh Market's operation was much better than Whole Foods. She stated the 10 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont.) compactor at Fresh Market did not smell and there was no trash strewn about. She stated this was not the case at the Whole Foods location on Rodney Parham Road. She requested the Commission continue to impose all previously imposed conditions such as limiting the hours of service and no idling of vehicles on the site. Ms. Tracey Kersey, President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood was in full support of Whole Foods locating in the neighborhood but not of allowing the building expansion or allowing the outdoor dining area. She stated the neighborhood had concerns with drainage as well not only from the proposed expansion but the existing drainage problems from the site. She stated water from this developed currently drained into the backyards of the homes located on Birchwood Drive causing severe flooding problems. She stated the developer did not fully comply with the original approval such as covering the loading dock area and planting and/or maintaining the trees and shrubs within the buffer area. She stated expanding the northern wall into the neighborhood would have a significant impact on the existing homes and would potentially add to the already problematic drainage concerns of the area. Mr. Havis Jack stated his home was located north of the site. He stated he was concerned with the potential impacts of the expansion but he did not have anything additional to add. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated buffers and landscaping were long hard fought battles in the 1980's and 1990's. She stated they had stood the test of time and were an enhancement to the neighborhoods. She stated she did not want to see the buffer intruded into since it was a fought battle and appeared to have served its purpose which was to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Reese stated drainage would not be a problem with the new construction. Mr. Joe White of White-Daters Engineers stated the drains would be connected and routed to the existing detention pond located behind Best Buy. Mr. White stated he did not feel there was a drainage problem on the site. Mr. Reese stated he had requested Whole Foods limit their loading dock to 33 -feet and they stated they could not function with less than 40 -feet. He stated their business was not like Fresh Market and they needed the additional area to load their compactor and maneuver the truck within the dock area. He stated he felt the placement of Whole Foods at this location was a win/win for the City. He stated no one would be able to tell the difference in a 30 -foot buffer and a 50 -foot buffer. He stated all who looked at the area felt the existing wood fence was the property line. He stated he also owned the shopping center on Bowman Road which had a retaining wall 20 -feet tall. He stated the height of the wall, which was two times as tall as this wall, had not impacted the adjacent homes. There was a general discussion by the Commission as to the existing drainage in the area, the proposed expansion and the need for the 50 -foot buffer. Staff stated the site included a 50 -foot building setback, a 10 -foot transition area and a replanted 40 -foot 11 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont. landscape buffer. Staff stated there was an elevation change from the existing wood fence and the floor level of the existing loading dock. Staff stated standing adjacent to the face of the building you were looking over the wood fence and into the back yard of the adjacent homes. Staff stated the site needed to be raised within the expansion area 10 to 15 -feet to match the existing floor elevation which would visually increase the height of the wall. Staff stated they felt all drainage problems could be addressed through proper maintenance. There was a question by the Commission as to the difference in the expansion area proposed by the neighborhood and the developer. The Commission also questioned what area would be maintained as a buffer if the 40 -foot expansion was allowed. Mr. White stated this was the first time he had seen the sketch provided by Mr. Ruck. He stated a deferral was necessary to review the sketch to see if it could meet the needs of the proposed tenant. Mr. Reese requested a deferral of the item to allow his engineer and the neighborhood to meet to discuss options for allowing the improvements to the building required to meet the needs of Whole Foods and meet the desires of the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 24, 2013, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request as filed by the applicant to allow a building/loading dock expansion along the northern face of the building extending the building 20 -feet to the north from its current northern face. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 2013) Mr. John Reese was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had met with staff and the neighborhood association and based on the meeting the site plan had been revised. Staff stated the new plan moved the loading dock building expansion forward (to the west). Staff stated the applicant had also requested to add additional alternative uses but had since removed the additional uses from his request. Staff stated the request to add a food store was the only use being proposed. Staff stated the applicant was requesting to place an area of outdoor dining in the front of the building and to not enclose the loading dock area as was required with the original approval. Staff stated they continued to recommend denial of the request. Mr. Reese addressed the Commission stating he had met with the neighborhood association and staff to redesign the site plan to better fit and have the least impact on the neighborhood. He stated the dock was shorten from 125 feet to 100 feet and moved forward 35 -feet to lessen the impact on the residence to the north. He stated the 12 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. neighborhood had requested the north wall be painted a neutral color and he had agreed. He stated the neighborhood had requested evergreens be planted to further screen the wall and he was agreeable to this as well. He stated the reuse of the building as a food store would add value to the homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Tracey Kersey President of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had met with Mr. Reese and did request he provide enhancements to protect the residence if the rezoning was approved. She stated this did not mean the neighborhood was in favor of the building expansion to the north. She stated the neighborhood did not understand why the additional area was necessary since other sites functioned with a compactor and truck within a truck dock the same width as the existing dock. She stated the neighborhood was opposed to the allowance of the outdoor dining and outdoor music. She stated previously the Commission had denied a request to allow an outdoor refreshment area for this site. She stated there had also been a request denied to allow the building to be expanded to the north. She stated the neighborhood did not want the grocery store because of the increase in traffic that would come with the grocery. She requested the Commission vote no on the expansion and on the outdoor dining. Ms. JoAnn Keith addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood had two questions, one was does Whole Foods really need the additional space and the answer was no and the second was could they move in the space as/is and the answer was yes. She stated the Birchwood Neighborhood was a unique neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood had only one exit out of the neighborhood and that was at Autumn Road. She stated the other three exits did not have traffic signals and the residents were unable to get into traffic. She stated the 50 -foot buffer was put in place to protect the neighborhood when the site was developed because the previous Commission saw this coming. She requested the Commission vote no on the request. Mr. Havis Jack addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home would be directly impacted if the approval was granted. He stated he had lived thru the development of the site from the beginning. He requested the Commission vote no on the encroachment. Ms. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the battle for the buffer was hard fought in the early 90's and was put in place to protect the neighborhood. She requested the Commission not allow any more intrusion into the neighborhood and to maintain the buffer put in place. Mr. Reese addressed the Commission stating it was unfortunate the City had grown around the neighborhood as it had. He stated the neighborhood was in a tough situation. He stated he did not feel the building expansion would hurt property values in the neighborhood. He stated different grocery stores had different requirements for loading docks and compactors. He stated the 35 -feet was the distance Whole Foods was telling him they needed to operate. 13 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C (Cont. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the building expansion, the commitments made to the neighborhood and the height of the wall. Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates stated there would be a four to five foot foundation wall with a 12 -foot masonry wall on -top. He stated this would be a part of the building and serve as the northern face of the loading dock. The Commission questioned drainage both existing and proposed. Mr. White stated the existing drainage was in a grate within the loading dock and was piped around the building to the detention pond. He stated the new area would also be captured and piped to the rear. He stated the previous concern of the downspouts on the north face of the building had been corrected. He stated the downspouts had become disconnected and Mr. Reese had repaired this problem. The Commission questioned the location of the existing wood fence and the distance of the expansion to the fence. Mr. White stated there would be seven feet between the expanded wall and the wood fence. He stated very little grading would take place within that seven feet. He stated within the thirty feet located north of the fence there would be no grading. The Commission questioned Mr. Reese if he was willing to limit the time for outdoor music to 9:00 pm. He stated he was willing to limit the hours of use of the outdoor patio and the music to 9:00 pm. The Commission questioned Ms. Kersey and Ms. Keith if the modification to the hours of outdoor activity addressed their concerns. Ms. Keith stated the neighborhood was not in support of allowing any outdoor activity. Ms. Kersey stated the neighborhood had done an unofficial test and after rush hour you could hear music from this parking lot on Alamo. She stated the noise would impact the nearby homeowners. The Commission generally stated they felt a number of the neighborhood's concerns were the required landscaping was not installed with the initial application which limited the mature buffer. The Commission questioned if the concern was a lack of faith in the developer or if they were truly concerned with the impact of the building expansion. Commissioner Changose stated he felt the neighborhood did not have a track record with this developer to look back on and say he has come through for us. Commissioner Pierce questioned Mr. Bill Ruck on his thoughts of the development. He stated he was in the minority of the neighborhood because he wanted a Whole Foods at this location but he was concerned with property values if the building was allowed to expand. He stated he felt the existing loading dock could accommodate the compactor and all activities desired by Whole Foods. He stated with a narrow access and an expansion to the eastern portion of the building the compactor could be accommodated. He stated his primary concern was for the property located immediately to the north and the impact the building expansion would have on his property value. He stated he was opposed to the building expansion to the north. 14 FILE NO.: Z -5787-C Cont. A motion was made to approve the request as amended, limiting the hours of outdoor music and use of the patio, to 9:00 pm. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, 1 abstention and 1 open position. 15 ITEM NO.: 5. Z -5787-C NAME: Whole Foods Revised Short -form PCD LOCATION: located on the Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road Planning Staff Comments: Provide notification of the property owners located within 200 feet of the site including the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than July 18, 2012. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than July 27, 2012. 2. All previous commitments regarding landscaping, hours of dumpster/compactor service, no idling of trucks awaiting delivery, all delivers are to take place within the loading dock area will continue to apply to this development. 3. The existing 8 -foot fence must be in good repair and all landscaping must be alive, accounted for, and in good condition or replaced in conjunction with this application. 4. Provide an up to date survey of the site. 5. Provide the proposed signage plan for the building and any ground signage. Varia nce/VI/aivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right- of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Current traffic volumes on Chenal Parkway between Bowman Road and Autumn Road exceed 35,000 trips per day. 3. Adequate left turn access is provided at the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway. 4. The addition of a left turn lane as proposed creates a very hazardous access due to traffic having to turn left across three (3) lanes of traffic. There are insufficient gaps in traffic to safely make a left turn maneuver across three (3) lanes of traffic. Other locations on Chenal Parkway have been converted to left turn protected by arrow only due to high accident numbers, such as Markham Street and Chenal Parkway. 5. The proposed left turn lane is too close to the intersection of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway and its proximity will result in blocking of the eastbound through traffic lanes resulting in added congestion and an increase in rear end collisions in this area. 6. Median cuts are prohibited by the design requirements, which are adopted by Ordinances #14,210 and #15,239. 7. Chenal Parkway Design requires a minimum of 600 ft between median openings to provide adequate left turn storage for vehicles. There is less than 500 feet between Bowman Road and the proposed median cut. 8. The intersection of Bowman and Chenal Parkway extends 465 feet to the east, thus leaving no room for adequate left turn storage for the proposed access. Left turning Item # 5. vehicles will block eastbound Chenal Parkway traffic on a corridor that is already over capacity. Planning Division: This request is located in the 1-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from PCD (Planned Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) to allow for development of a grocery store on this site. This is within the Chenal Parkway Overlay and signage has special recommendations. Master Street Plan: Bowman Road is a Minor Arterial and Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. A Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on both Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road since they are a Principal and Minor Arterial respectively. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, July 18, 2012. Item # 5.