Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5839 Staff Analysis1 C �- I 1. Meeting Date: July 19, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-5839 3. Request: Establish CHENAL VILLAGE -- LONG FORM PCD 4. Location: At the northeast corner of Financial Center Parkway and Autumn Road 5. Owner/Ap-plicant: Second Century Investments 6. Existing Status: The west half of the tract is vacant and is zoned C-3; the east half of the tract is zoned R-2 and the First Assembly of God Church is located in this R-2 area. 7. Proposed Use: Commercial shopping center 8. staff Recommendation: Approval of the amended site plan 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the amended site plan 10. Conditions or I sues Remaining to be Resolved: Waiver of the Subdivision Regulations which would require Master Street Plan improvements to the boundary street right-of-way lying along the east boundary of the site, abutting the rear of the Springwood Drive residences. 11. Right -of --Way Issues: None, except the waiver of improvements noted above. Additional right-of-way and improvements are being provided for along Financial Center Parkway and along Autumn Road in this PCD. 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Objectors: Doyle Daniel, President, Birchwood Neighborhood Association and a resident of a house on Springwood Dr.; and, Rosalie Daniel, Floyd B. Boyd, and Kenneth M. Davis, residents of homes on Springwood Dr. 14. Neighborhood Contact Person/Others: Doyle Daniel, President, Birchwood Neighborhood Association. 15. Neighborhood Plan: Rodney Parham NAME: CHENAL VILLAGE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Financial Center Parkway and Autumn Road DEVELOPER: TED R. SECOND 903 E. Plano, (214) AREA: PITTMAN ENGINEER• ROBERT BROWN CENTURY INVESTMENTS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 18th. St., Suite 230 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 TX 75074 Little Rock, AR 72205 423-7776 221-7880 8.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 and R-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail Shopping Center PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of improvements to undeveloped right-of-way along the east boundary of the property. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of an 8.2 acre tract as a retail shopping center. A linear building of approximately 85,000 square feet lies along the north property line. This building is shown being divided into three tenant spaces of approximately equal square footages (27,000, 30,000, and 28,000 square feet). A single 9,000 square foot detached building stands at the southeast corner of the site. Parking for 426 vehicles is proposed. The list of proposed uses includes all C-2 uses by right, except: ambulance service post; amusement, commercial (inside); animal clinic (enclosed); appliance repair; auto glass or muffler shop; bar, lounge, or tavern; beverage store; butcher shop; community welfare or health center; day nursery or day care center; eating place with drive-in service; establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization; hardware or sporting goods store; health studio or spa; hotel or motel; laundromat or pickup station; lawn and garden center (enclosed); lodge or fraternal organization; parking, commercial lot or garage; pawnshop; plant sales, temporary/open display; plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, or heating shop; recycling facility, automated; private club with dining or bar service; school (business); secondhand store (used furniture or rummage FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) shop); service station; or, theater. The list of proposed uses include all C-3 uses by right except: cabinet and woodwork shop; college dormitory; college fraternity or sorority; collect, university or seminary; convenience food store with gas pumps; convent or monastery; establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic, or psychiatric patients; feed store; food store - supermarket; group care homes; hospital; laboratory, laundry, domestic cleaning; mortuary or funeral home; multifamily dwellings (as per the R-5 district); office, showroom/warehouse (with retail sales, enclosed; private school; kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (commercial, trade, or craft); school (public or denomination); taxidermist; or, video rental store. The list of proposed uses, as well as those not listed above, includes: restaurant or cafeteria; specialty food store (such as health foods, organic foods, etc.), pet store, p rmacy with drive -through service, and enclosed retail uses not sted in the C-2 and C-3 listings of uses by right. The proposed signage is a combined sign panel of 12 feet by 12 feet in a masonry structure with an overall size of 15 feet in height and 13 feet in width. Each of the tenants will have separate panel areas within the overall panel. Site lighting is proposed to be limited to 30 foot maximum height poles with directional type fixtures to minimize any bleedover to surrounding properties. Hours of operation are proposed to be from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM on week days and 8:00 AM to midnight on weekends. Trash pick-up is proposed to be limited to business hours. The developer proposes to pay a 25% share of the cost related to signalization of the Autumn Road -Financial Center Parkway intersection. There is an existing 30 foot wide street right-of-way which lies along the eastern boundary of the site, and "dead -ends" at the Birchwood Subdivision boundary to the north. The eastern drive approach off Financial Center Parkway utilizes the southern end of the right-of-way for access to this site and to the abutting site to the east. The portion of the right-of-way north of this drive approach is undeveloped and is not planned by the City for development. The applicant proposes to retain the right-of-way as part of a natural and landscape buffer area. Therefore, a waiver is requested to the requirement that boundary rights -of -way be improved. Supplemental plantings in this buffer area will be provided; however, to keep the right-of-way clear for the power line and from having to be maintained by the abutting residential owners, the supplemental plantings will be kept 15 feet off the east property line of the right-of-way. 2 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) The applicant requests that no privacy fence be required along the east boundary, and that the natural and supplemental plantings suffice for the required buffers. The applicant proposes to finish the east facing walls of the proposed buildings with a neural color, and to place no trademark logos or accent colors on these east facing walls. A. PROPOSAL�REOUEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of an ordinance for the establishment of Chenal Village PCD is requested. The PCD entails the development of an 8.2 acre site with an 85,000 square foot building across the north boundary of the site and a free-standing 9,000 square foot building at the southeast corner of the site. Parking for 426 vehicles is proposed. Limited C-2 and C-3 uses are requested. Realignment and improvements to Autumn Road are provided. An unused north -south right-of-way which lies along the east property line of the site is proposed to be retained as buffer to separate the commercial center from the residential uses to the east. Since the Regulations require the improvement of boundary rights -of -way, a wavier of this requirement is sought from the Board of Directors. B. EXTSTING CONDITIONS: The western two-thirds of the site is undeveloped. The eastern one-third of the site is the present location of the First Assembly of God Church. The terrain generally slopes from a high point along the east property line to the west, with a grade differential across the site of approximately 40 feet. The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-2. The western portion of the site is the C-3 area; the eastern portion, where the church facility is located, is an R-2 area. There is a conditional use permit for the church use of this R-2 property. To the east of the site is a portion of the Birchwood neighborhood, with houses which face Springwood Drive backing up to the site. At the southeast corner of the tract is an 0-3 zoned site. To the north is a large 0-2 area. (This 0-2 area has a 50 foot OS strip on its east and north boundary which separates the 0-2 zoned area from the R-2 zoned Birchwood neighborhood.) To the west, across Autumn Road, and to the south, across Financial Center Parkway, are C-3 zoned tracts. r FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that a turn lane on Chenal Parkway will be required to be constructed, and Autumn Road will have to be aligned and constructed as required by Engineering. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. (The applicant is advised to obtain a state permit for stormwater discharge.) Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $12 per foot applies along a portion of the frontage on Financial Center Parkway, in addition to the normal connection charge (307 feet @ $12 = $3,684). On site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension will be required to serve all buildings. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Little Rock Fire Department reported that the fire hydrant locations may need to be rearranged to serve the sprinkler hook-ups. Standard City "No Parking/Tow Away Zone" signs are to be placed around the perimeter of the buildings. Landscaping review reports that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Landscaping Ordinance requirements. Planning review states that the site is in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial uses for the western one-half of the site and office uses for the eastern half. The Planning staff questions the need for the addition of commercial acreage, but recognizes that the proposal, as one uniform developments which limits commercial uses, and with sufficient buffering, has merits. The Planning staff recommends that the free-standing building, which is in the area designated for office uses and which is close to the residential uses to the east, be eliminated. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: All submittal requirements have been met. The Public Works concerns regarding Autumn Road alignment and construction have been met. 4 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Conti The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-201.h) states: "Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated... public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right- of-way." There is 30 feet of a dedicated right-of-way along the east boundary of the subdivision; and, since the developer plans to retain the right-of-way as a portion of the needed buffer and not develop the street, a waiver of this requirement is required. E. ANALYSIS• There have been a number of neighborhood meetings involving the developer's engineer and the Birchwood neighborhood. The list of proposed users was developed in and as a result of those neighborhood meetings. (In the final analysis, though, the neighborhood's official recommendation is for denial of the proposed PCD.) The OS buffer on the 0-2 property to the north is 50 feet in width. The developer of this PCD has proposed a minimum 59.3 foot wide buffer, including the 30 foot wide undeveloped street right-of-way. At the southeast corner of the project, where the free standing building backs up to residential properties, the buffer is increased to 69.3 feet. As pointed out in the Planning staff's comments regarding the land use question concerning this site, there is considered to be merit is having a uniform development which limits possible commercial uses, even though the Land Use Plan shows the eastern one-half of the site to be reserved for office uses. (The western one-half of the site is shown, on the Land Use Plan, for commercial uses; so, the proposal is in conformance with the Plan in this part of the site.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD and of the list of proposed uses, with the condition that the free-standing building at the southeast corner of the site be eliminated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994) Mr. Ted Pittman, a representative of the developer, and Mr. Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, were 5 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) present. Staff presented the request and Mr. Brown reviewed the comments in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed development plans and the comments with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown stated that the needed changes and additions would be made. There was a discussion concerning the median cut and driveway off Financial Center Parkway at the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Ed Willis was present, and he stated that the provision for this medial cut and driveway were provided for in the agreement to dedicate right-of-way for Financial Center Parkway. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994) Staff presented the request and reported that the staff recommendation was for approval of the request, on the condition that the list of approved uses be limited and that the free-standing building be removed. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., reviewed the request, outlining the elements of the site plan and the proposal. He indicated that the total building area proposed for the site is 94,000 square feet, more or less, which is approximately 26.8% of the total area of the site. The interior green space represents 25% of the area, with the perimeter green space equaling 1.4 acres. He cited the list of prohibited uses, as contained in the hand-out, but indicated that there were a couple of errors: 1) that a crematorium had been inadvertently omitted from the list of prohibited uses; and, 2) that sporting good store had been omitted from the list of permitted uses. He reported that the proposed development met all the requirements for setback and landscaping; that it provided good buffers to the abutting residential properties; and, that, because the site is substantially lower than the residences on Springwood Drive, the residential area would be minimally affected. Mr. Brown pointed out that the developer was being required to include a significant realignment of Autumn Road onto his property; Autumn Road was being shifted to the east for better alignment with the existing intersection, and to provide a better alignment for a signalized intersection. He reported that the developer agreed to participate in the installation costs of signalizing the intersection, and would pay 25% of those costs. He also mentioned that the plan provides for the required turn lane from Financial Center Parkway onto Autumn Road. Mr. Brown said that the developer disagrees with the staff position that the free-standing building should be eliminated. He reported that a number of neighborhood meetings had been held, and that the developer had tried to accommodate as many of the neighborhood 0 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued? concerns as possible; however, he realized that the neighborhood still had some concerns that the developer was unable to accommodate. He reported that, in addition to the concessions previously included in the report to staff, the developer had agreed to limit trash pick-up to daylight hours in lieu of "business hours" as cited. Mr. Brown proposed that the free-standing building be moved from its position at the southeast corner of the property to the southwest corner, but added that a drive-thru window would be requested. Mr. Joe Jackson spoke in support of the proposal. He identified himself as the pastor of the First Assembly of God Church and as a resident of Birchwood. He indicated that the Church needed to sell the present location and move to another site, and that the Church supported the development. Mr. Fletcher Clement, who introduced himself as an owner of the abutting property to the north, spoke in support of the proposal, but indicated that he had one reservation: that the north buffer needed to be increased to 50 feet, with the existing stand of trees left in tact. He also wanted the fence along the north property line increased from 6 feet in height to 8 feet. He also wanted additional trees planted in the 50 foot buffer where there was inadequate tree coverage. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for a report on the buffer requirements for such a development. Neighborhoods and Planning Director, Jim Lawson, reported that the buffers and landscaping requirements are met in the site plan as presented; that the buffer along the north property line tapers from approximately 16 feet to approximately 28 feet, and that this is more than is required by the regulations. Mr. Lawson went on to say, though, that staff would support an increase in the north buffer, since this would encourage office development on the property to the north, and would discourage attempts at commercial rezoning of the tract. He indicated that staff would be supportive of the relocation of the building to the southwest corner of the property, and that staff did not care if a drive-thru window were added for that location. Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Clement's comments, and reported that the regulations do not require a buffer between the proposed commercial use and the office use to the north; that only a 6 foot perimeter landscaping strip is required. He reported that the developer has proposed a landscape buffer far in excess of the 6 foot minimum, and complained that a 50 foot buffer provision would be excessive. He did say, though, that the developer would provide an 8 foot high fence along the north boundary. 7 FILE NO.: Z-5839 Continued Commissioner Willis asked for a report on how much parking would be eliminated if the 50 foot buffer were required. Mr. Brown responded that the building would have to be moved forward approximately 20 feet, and this would take spaces off each bay of spaces. Mr. David Elms spoke in support of the development, and indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the First Assembly of God Church membership. Mr. Doyle Daniel, president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke, and read a prepared statement into the record. He indicated that the neighborhood was in opposition to the proposal, but, with modification of the proposal, could support it. He said that the neighborhood supported limiting the uses to C-2 uses and eliminating all C-3 uses. The neighborhood opposed all restaurant uses, no matter where on the site that use is proposed to be located. He said that the neighborhood was concerned, not so much about the food service users who had been identified by the developer as potential tenants, but about any future food service users that might be tenants on the site. He said that the neighborhood opposed any drive-thru service, any pet store, and to the inclusion of the "retail uses not listed" in the proposal. Mr. Floyd B. Boyd identified himself as a resident on Springwood Drive whose property backs up to the proposed site. He reiterated Mr. Daniel' opposition. Mr. Ken Davis complained that the developer has made a significant change in their proposal by introducing a drive-thru restaurant into the proposal, and stated that a high density commercial use should not be located adjacent to residential use areas. Such an encroachment, he said, affects the livability of the area. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, said that the League opposed the development. She said that the 9:00 hour for closing the businesses which was proposed by the neighborhood was late enough. The drive-thru window proposal, she said, was unacceptable. He said that the League would not support the free-standing building being included in the'proposal. Mr. Ed Willis, identifying himself as a seller of the C-3 portion of the site and having an interest in other office development in the Financial Center Parkway area, spoke in support of the development. He reminded the Commissioners and Birchwood neighbors that half of the site is presently zoned C-3, and, as such, C-3 uses could be placed on that part of the site without neighborhood input or the limitations on the uses being offered by the developer. The C-3 area could have the fast food .11 FILE NO,: Z-5839 (Continued restaurant with the drive-thru window, a pet store with veterinary service, etc., and, in fact, he said that the Owners' had been presented with those options already. The proposed development provides a good opportunity for the area, he said. The site is spread out, not congested, and places C-3 uses in the C-3 part of the site. He pointed out that the Land Use Plan calls for the east half of the site to be for office use, and, he said, the three Financial Centre buildings are each on less land than the east half of the site contains; he said that the east half of the site could be developed with a similar building. The Financial Centre buildings each contain over 100,000 square feet in 5 stories, and such a development could be proposed for the area abutting the Springwood Drive homes if the PCD failed. Mr. Brown reiterated that the developer is offering a greatly reduced list of users for the PCD which eliminates half of the C-3 uses in the Zoning Ordinance. He said, though, that the developer cannot eliminate the "retail uses not listed" from the list. The proposed list is primarily C-2 uses with the addition of the specialty food store. He pointed out that the proposed food service development relocated to the southwest corner of the site is over 500 feet away from the residential area, and, that it is in the C-3 area. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Brown if the developer could agree to providing the requested 50 foot buffer along the north property line. Mr. Brown replied that this could not be accommodated. Chairperson Chachere recalled that the developer had committed to providing the 8 foot high fence, and that the buffer which has been proposed ranges in depth from 16 feet to 28 feet. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown to speak to the proposed site lighting and signage. Mr. Ted R. Pittman, with Second Century Investments, said that the developer needs the Commission to approve later operating hours than the 9:00 time proposed by the neighborhood; that a closing time of 11:00 and 12:00 are acceptable. Mr. Brown reported that there would be one primary combined sign for the site, and that building signage would -meet the regulations. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown if there would be any pole signs. 9 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) _ Mr. Brown said that there would be none. Bob Brown, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff person responsible for landscape review, said that the regulations do not require a buffer on the north property line; only a 6 foot wide landscape strip and a 6 foot high good neighbor fence. He said that if a buffer were required, the width of such a buffer would be required to average 30 feet. Commissioner Willis asked staff for a reaction to requiring a 30 foot buffer. Mr. Lawson responded that such a buffer width would be acceptable if it were 30 feet in depth the entire width of the site. He went on to explain the rationale for not supporting the C-3 use and the free-standing building at the southeast corner of the site; that the Land Use Plan calls for the east half of the site to be office uses, and the east half of the site needs to be less intensely developed. He said, though, that staff does not support telling the developer that he can sell one type of goods and not another. The Ordinance, he said, differentiates between restaurants with drive-thru service and those with out, and this distinction can be made, but not other distinctions. Mr. Brown clarified the developer's proposal: he indicated that the free-standing building would be shifted to the southwest corner of the site and reduced to a 6,000 square foot building; that this building would have provision for drive-thru service; that an 8 foot high fence would be provided along the north property line; that the north buffer would be increased to 25-30 foot in depth, average; that the crematorium was to be added to the prohibited listing of uses, but that the sporting goods sales would be added to the listing of permitted uses; and, that food store use would be added to the list of prohibited uses. Mr. Daniel asked if the developer still proposed another restaurant use on the property. Mr. Brown responded that, pursuant to the developer's instructions, the restaurant use at the free-standing building would be the only restaurant use on the site. Mr. Willis indicted that neighborhood representatives had cited the late night construction activity on other sites in the area, and asked the developer to limit the hours of construction activity. Mr. Brown, again after consulting the developer would enforce a 9:00 activity. with Mr. Pittman, replied that P.M. limit on construction 10 FILE NO.: Z-5839 (Continued) Commissioner Walker clarified for the record that coffee served in conjunction with the book library and sales operation would not constitute a restaurant use; that the primary use of the tenant would be the controlling criteria. A motion was then made and seconded to recommend approval the amended site plan, including the listing of proposed use exclusions and provisions, as amended, and including the request to leave the north -south boundary street right-of-way along the east boundary of the site as a landscape buffer without the developer having to provide additional right-of-way or having to construct Master Street Plan improvements in the unused right-of-way. The motion to recommend approval passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11 June 14, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-58-32 NAME: CHENAL VILLAGE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Financial Center Parkway and Autumn Road DEVELOPER: Hr4OZ*-EER TED R. PITTMAN ROBERT BROWN SECOND CENTURY INVESTMENTS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 903 E. 18th. St., Suite 230 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 Plano, TX 75074 Little Rock, AR 72205 (214) 423-7776 221-7880 AREA: 8.2 ACRES NTMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST?RET: 0 ZONING: C-3 and R-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail Shopping Center PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSQS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of improvements to undeveloped right-of-way along the east boundary of the property. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of an 8.2 acre tract as a retail shopping center. A linear building of approximately 85,000 square feet lies along the nogth property line. This building is shown being divided into, three tenant spaces of approximately equal square footages (27,000, 30,000, and 28,000 square feet). A single 9,000 square foot detached building stands at the southeast corner of the site. Parking for 426 vehicles is proposed. The list of proposed uses includes all C-2 uses by right, except: ambulance service post; amusement, commercial (inside); animal clinic (enclosed); appliance repair; auto glass or muffler shop; bar, lounge, or tavern; beverage store; butcher shop; community welfare or health center; day nursery or day care center; eating place with drive-in service; establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization; hardware or sporting goods store; health studio or spa; hotel or motel; laundromat or pickup station; lawn and garden center (enclosed); lodge or fraternal organization; parking, commercial lot or garage; pawnshop; plant sales, temporary/open display; plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, or heating shop; recycling facility, automated; private club with dining or bar service; school (business); secondhand store (used furniture or rummage shop); service station; or, theater. The list of proposed uses June 14, 1994 BDIVI S I O�i ITEM NO.: F (Continued) _ _ FILE NO.: Z-_5839 include all C-3 uses by right except: cabinet and woodwork shop; college dormitory; college fraternity or sorority; collect, university or seminary; convenience food store with gas pumps; convent or monastery; establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic, or psychiatric patients; feed store; food store - supermarket; group care homes; hospital; laboratory, laundry, domestic cleaning; mortuary or funeral home; multifamily dwellings (as per the R-5 district); office, showroom/warehouse (with retail sales, enclosed; private school; kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (commercial, trade, or craft); school (public or denomination); taxidermist; or, video rental store. The list of proposed uses, as well as those not listed above, includes: restaurant or cafeteria; specialty food store (such as health foods, organic foods, etc.), pet store, pharmacy with drive -through service, and enclosed retail uses not listed in the C-2 and C-3 listings of uses by right. The proposed signage 12 feet in a masonry height and 13 feet i separate panel areas is a combined sign panel of 12 feet by structure with an overall size of 15 feet in n width. Each of the tenants will have within the overall panel. Site lighting is proposed to be limited to 30 foot maximum height poles with directional type fixtures to minimize any bleedover to surrounding properties. Hours of operation are proposed to be from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM on week days and 8:00 AM to midnight on weekends. Trash pick-up is proposed to be limited to business hours. The developer proposes to pay a 25%'Ohare of the cost related to signalization of the Autumn Road -Financial Center Parkway intersection. There is an existing 30 foot wide street right-of-way which lies along the eastern boundary of the site, and "dead -ends" at the Birchwood Subdivision boundary to the north. The eastern drive approach off Financial Center Parkway utilizes the southern end of the right-of-way for access to this site and to the abutting site to the east. The portion of the right-of-way north of this drive approach is undeveloped and is not planned by the City for development. The applicant proposes to retain the right-of-way as part of a natural and landscape buffer area. Therefore, a waiver is requested to the requirement that boundary rights -of -way be improved. Supplemental plantings in this buffer area will be provided; however, to keep the right-of-way clear for the power line and from having to be maintained by the abutting residential owners, the supplemental plantings will be kept 15 feet off the east property line of the right-of-way. 2 June 14, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITE,'d NO.: 6 Continued' FILE NO.: Z-5839 The applicant requests that no privacy fence be required along the east boundary, and that the natural and supplemental plantings suffice for the required buffers. The applicant proposes to finish the east facing walls of the proposed buildings with a neural color, and to place no trademark logos or accent colors on these east facing walls. A. PROPOSAL RE ❑EST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of an ordinance for the establishment of Chenal Village PCD is requested. The PCD entails the development of an 8.2 acre site with an 85,000 square foot building across the north boundary of the site and a free-standing 9,000 square foot building at the southeast corner of the site. Parking for 426 vehicles is proposed. Limited C-2 and C-3 uses are requested. Realignment and improvements to Autumn Road are provided. An unused north -south right-of-way which lies along the east property line of the site is proposed to be retained as buffer to separate the commercial center from the residential uses to the east. Since the Regulations require the improvement of boundary rights -of -way, a wavier of this requirement is sought from the Board of Directors. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The western two-thirds of the site is undeveloped. The eastern one-third of the site is the present location of the First Assembly of God Church. The terrain generally slopes from a high point along the easy property line to the west, with a grade differential across the site of approximately_ 40 feet. The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-2. The western portion of the site is the C-3 area; the eastern portion, where the church facility is located, is an R-2 area. There is a conditional use permit for the church use of this R-2 property. To the east of the site is a.portion of the Birchwood neighborhood, with houses which face Springwood Drive backing up to the site. At the southeast corner of the tract is an 0-3 zoned site. To the north is a large 0-2 area. (This 0-2 area has a 50 foot OS strip on its east and north boundary which separates the 0-2 zoned area from the R-2 zoned Birchwood neighborhood.) To the west, across Autumn Road, and to the south, across Financial Center Parkway, are C-3 zoned tracts. 3 June 14, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5$39_ C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY CQbMENTS: Public Works comments that a turn lane on Chenal Parkway will be required to be constructed, and Autumn Road will have to be aligned and constructed as required by Engineering. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation ordinances will apply. (The applicant is advised to obtain a state permit for stormwater discharge.) Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $12 per foot applies along a portion of the frontage on Financial Center Parkway, in addition to the normal connection charge (307 feet @ $12 = $3,684). On site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension will be required to serve all buildings. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require additional easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Little Rock Fire Department reported that the fire hydrant locations may need to be rearranged to ser-,re the sprinkler hook-ups. Standard City "No Parking/Tow Away zone" signs are to be placed around the perimeter of the buildings. Landscaping review reports that,the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Landscaping ordinance requirements. Planning review states that the site is in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial uses for the western one-half of the site and office uses for the eastern half. The Planning staff questions the need for the addition of commercial acreage,, but recognizes that the proposal, as one uniform developments which limits commercial uses, and with sufficient buffering, has merits. The Planning staff recommends that the free-standing building, which is in the area designated for office uses and which is close to the residential uses to the east, be eliminated. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: All submittal requirements have been met. The Public Works concerns regarding Autumn Road alignment and construction have been met. 4 June 14, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 6 (Cantinued) _ FILE NO.: Z-5839 The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-201.h) states: "Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated... public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right- of-way." There is 30 feet of a dedicated right-of-way along the east boundary of the subdivision; and, since the developer plans to retain the right-of-way as a portion of the needed buffer and not develop the street, a waiver of this requirement is required. E. ANALYSIS• There have been a number of neighborhood meetings involving the developer's engineer and the Birchwood neighborhood. The list of proposed users was developed in and as a result of those neighborhood meetings. (In the final analysis, though, the neighborhood's official recommendation is for denial of the proposed PCD.) The OS buffer on the 0-2 property to the north is 50 feet in width. The developer of this PCD has proposed a minimum 59.3 foot wide buffer, including the 30 foot wide undeveloped street right-of-way. At the southeast corner of the project, where the free standing building backs up to residential properties, the buffer is increased to 69.3 feet. As pointed out in the Planning staff's comments regarding the land use question concerning this site, there is considered to be merit is having a uniform development which limits possible commercial uses even though the Land Use Plan shows the eastern one-half of the site to be reserved for office uses. (The western one-half of the site is shown, on the Land Use Plan, for commercial uses; so, the proposal is in conformance with the Plan in this part of the site.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD and of the list of proposed uses, with the condition that the free-standing building at the southeast corner of the site be eliminated. SOBDIVI ION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994) Mr. Ted Pittman, a representative of the developer, and Mr. Robert Brown, representing the project engineering firm, were present. Staff presented the request and Mr. Brown reviewed the 5 June 14, 1994 SQBDIVISIOW ITEM NO.: o Continued FILE NO - : Z comments in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed development plans and the comments with Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown stated that the needed changes and additions would be made. There was a discussion concerning the median cut and driveway off Financial Center Parkway at the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Ed Willis was present, and he stated that the provision for this medial cut and driveway were provided for in the agreement to dedicate right-of-way for Financial Center Parkway. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 14, 1994) Staff presented the request and reported that the staff recommendation was for approval of the request, on the condition that the list of approved uses be limited and that the free- standing building be removed. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., reviewed the request, outlining the elements of the site plan and the proposal. He indicated that the total building area proposed for the site is 94,000 square feet, more or less, which is approximately 26.8% of the total area of the site. The interior green space represents 25% of the area, with the perimeter green space equaling 1.4 acres. He cited the list of prohibited uses, as contained in the hand-out, but indicated that there were a couple of errors: 1) that a crematorium had been inadvertently omitted from the list of prohibited uses; and, 2) that sporting good store had been omitted from the list of permitted uses. He reported that the proposed development met all the requirements for setback and landscaping; that it,provided good buffers to the abutting residential properties; and, that, because the site is substantially lower than the residences on Springwood Drive, the residential area would be minimally affected. Mr. Brown pointed out that the developer was being required to include a significant realignment of Autumn Road onto his property; Autumn Road was being shifted to the east for better alignment with the existing intersection, and to provide a better alignment for a signalized intersection. He reported that the developer agreed to participate in the installation costs of signalizing the intersection, and would pay 25% of those costs. He also mentioned that the plan provides for the required turn lane from Financial Center Parkway onto Autumn Road. Mr. Brown said that the developer disagrees with the staff position that the free- standing building should be eliminated. He reported that a number of neighborhood meetings had been held, and that the developer had tried to accommodate as many of the neighborhood June 14, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (.Continued) FILE NO - : Z- concerns as possible; however, he realized that the neighborhood still had some concerns that the developer was unable to accommodate. He reported that, in addition to the concessions previously included in the report to staff, the developer had agreed to limit trash pick-up to daylight hours in lieu of "business hours" as cited. Mr. Brown proposed that the free-standing building be moved from its position at the southeast corner of the property to the southwest corner, but added that a drive-thru window would be requested. Mr. Joe Jackson spoke in support of the proposal. He identified himself as the pastor of the First Assembly of God Church and as a resident of Birchwood. He indicated that the Church needed to sell the present location and move to another site, and that the Church supported the development. Mr. Fletcher Clement, who introduced himself as an owner of the abutting property to the north, spoke in support of the proposal, but indicated that he had one reservation: that the north buffer needed to be increased to 50 feet, with the existing stand of trees left in tact. He also wanted the fence along the north property line increased from 6 feet in height to 8 feet. He also wanted additional trees planted in the 50 foot buffer where there was inadequate tree coverage. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for a report on the buffer requirements for such a development. Neighborhoods and Planning Director, Jim Lawson, reported that the buffers and landscaping requirements are met in the site plan as presented; that the buffer along the north property line tapers from approximately 16 feet toyapproximately 28 feet, and that this is more than is required by the regulations. Mr. Lawson went on to say, though, that staff would support an increase in the north buffer, since this would encourage office development on the property to the north, and would discourage_ attempts at commercial rezoning of the tract. He indicated that staff would be supportive of the relocation of the building to the southwest corner of the property, and that staff did not care if a drive-thru window were added for that location. Mr. Brown responded to Mr. Clement's comments, and reported that the regulations do not require a buffer between the proposed commercial use and the office use to the north; that only a 6 foot perimeter landscaping strip is required. He reported that the developer has proposed a landscape buffer far in excess of the 6 foot minimum, and complained that a 50 foot buffer provision would be excessive. He did say, though, that the developer would provide an 8 foot high fence along the north boundary. 7 June 14, 1994' kBDlvzszoN ITEM NO.: 6 ontinued FILE NQ.:-5839 Commissioner Willis asked for a report on how much parking would be eliminated if the 50 foot buffer were required. Mr. Brown responded that the building would have to be moved forward approximately 20 feet, and this would take spaces off each bay of spaces._ . Mr. David Elms spoke in support of the development, and indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the First Assembly of God Church membership. Mr. Doyle Daniel, president of the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke, and read a prepared statement into the record. He indicated that the neighborhood was in opposition to the proposal, but, with modification of the proposal, could support it. He said that the neighborhood supported limiting the uses to C-2 uses and eliminating all C-3 uses. The neighborhood opposed all restaurant uses, no matter where on the site that use is proposed to be located. He said that the neighborhood was concerned, not so much about the food service users who had been identified by the developer as potential tenants, but about any future food service users that might be tenants on the site. He said that the neighborhood opposed any drive-thru service, any pet store, and to the inclusion of the "retail uses not listed" in the proposal. Mr. Floyd B. Boyd identified himself as a resident on Springwood Drive whose property backs up to the proposed site. He reiterated Mr. Daniel' opposition. Mr. Ken Davis complained that the developer has made a significant change in their proposal by introducing a drive-thru restaurant into the proposal, and stated that a high density commercial use should not be located adjacent to residential use areas. Such an encroachment, he said, affects the livability of the area. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women voters, said that the League opposed the development. She said that the 9:00 hour for closing the businesses which was proposed by the neighborhood was late enough. The drive-thru window proposal, she said, was unacceptable. He said that the League would not support the free-standing building being included in the proposal. Mr. Ed Willis, identifying himself as a seller of the C-3 portion of the site and having an interest in other office development in the Financial Center Parkway area, spoke in support of the development. He reminded the Commissioners and Birchwood neighbors that half of the site is presently zoned C-3, and, as 8 June 14, 1994 HDIVI TON TTEM NO. 5 Continued] FILE NO.: Z- such, C-3 uses could be placed on that part of the site without neighborhood input or the limitations on the uses being offered by the developer. The C-3 area could have the fast food restaurant with the drive-thru window, a pet store with veterinary service, etc., and, in fact, he said that the Owners' had been presented with those options already. The proposed development provides a good opportunity for the area, he said. The site is spread out, not congested, and places C-3 uses in the C-3 part of the site. He pointed out that the Land Use Plan calls for the east half of the site to be for office use, and, he said, the three Financial Centre buildings are each on less land than the east half of the site contains; he said that the east half of the site could be developed with a similar building. The Financial Centre buildings each contain over 100,000 square feet in 5 stories, and such a development could be proposed for the area abutting the Springwood Drive homes if the PCD failed. Mr. Brown reiterated that the developer is offering a greatly reduced list of users for the PCD which eliminates half of the C-3 uses in the Zoning Ordinance. He said, though, that the developer cannot eliminate the "retail uses not listed" from the list. The proposed list is primarily C-2 uses with the addition of the specialty food store. He pointed out that the proposed food service development relocated to the southwest corner of the site is over 500 feet away from the residential area, and, that it is in the C-3 area. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Brown if the developer could agree to providing the requested 50 foot buffer along the north property line. Mr. Brown replied that this could not be accommodated. Chairperson Chachere recalled that the developer had committed to providing the 8 foot high fence, and that the buffer which has been proposed ranges in depth from 16 feet to 28 feet. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown to speak to the proposed site lighting and signage. Mr. Ted R. Pittman, with Second Century Investments, said that the developer needs the Commission to approve later operating hours than the 9:00 time proposed by the neighborhood; that a closing time of 11:00 and 12:00 are acceptable. Mr. Brown reported that there would be one primary combined sign for the site, and that building signage would meet the regulations. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Brown if there would be any pole signs. W June 14, 1994 SUBDIVIS70N ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-.58.32 Mr. Brown said that there would be none. Bob Brown, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff person responsible for landscape review, said that the regulations do not require a buffer on the north property line; only a 6 foot wide landscape strip and a 6 foot high good neighbor fence. He said that if a buffer were required, the width of such a buffer would be required to average 30 feet. Commissioner Willis asked staff for a reaction to requiring a 30 foot buffer. Mr. Lawson responded that such a buffer width would be acceptable if it were 30 feet in depth the entire width of the site. He went on to explain the rationale for not supporting the C-3 use and the free-standing building at the southeast corner of the site; that the Land Use Plan calls for the east half of the site to be office uses, and the east half of the site needs to be less intensely developed. He said, though, that staff does not support telling the developer that he can sell one type of goods and not another. The Ordinance, he said, differentiates between restaurants with drive-thru service and those with out, and this distinction can be made, but not other distinctions. Mr. Brown clarified the developer's proposal: he indicated that the free-standing building would be shifted to the southwest corner of the site and reduced to a 6,000 square foot building; that this building would have provision for drive-thru service; that an 8 foot high fence would be provided along the north property line; that the north buffer would be increased to 25-30 foot in depth, average; that the crematorium was to be added to the prohibited listing of uses, but that the sporting goods sales would be added to the listing of permitted uses; and, that food store use would be added to the list of prohibited uses. Mr. Daniel asked if the developer still proposed another restaurant use on the property. Mr. Brown responded that, pursuant to the developer's instructions, the restaurant use at the free-standing building would be the only restaurant use on the site. Mr. Willis indicted that neighborhood representatives had cited the late night construction activity on other sites in the area, and asked the developer to limit the hours of construction activity. Mr. Brown, again after consulting with Mr. Pittman, replied that the developer would enforce a 9:00 P.M. limit on construction activity. 10 June 14, 1994 ,SUBDIVI,SIO ITEM NO.: 5 Con inued FILE NO.: z- Commissioner Walker clarified for the record that coffee served in conjunction with the book library and sales operation would not constitute a restaurant use; that the primary use of the tenant would be the controlling criteria. A motion was then made and seconded to recommend approval the amended site plan, including the listing of proposed use exclusions and provisions, as amended, and including the request to leave the north -south boundary street right-of-way along the east boundary of the site as a landscape buffer without the developer having to provide additional right-of-way or having to construct Master Street Plan improvements in the unused right-of-way. The motion to recommend approval passed with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11