Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6179-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6179-A NAME: Davis Petroleum PD -C LOCATION: 14103 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Davis Petroleum Services 3520 West 69th Street Suite 203 Little Rock, AR 72209 565-0035 ENGINEER: DCI by Robert Brown 2200 N. Rodney Parham Rd. Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 221-7880 AREA: 0.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: PD -C ALLOWED USES: Proposed to be an auto lube/oil change plus one bay car wash in later phase. No other uses requested at this time. BACKGROUND: This site was previously approved for a car wash only on November 7, 1996. That plan was very little different from this plan. One primary change is the large ditch will remain open. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: To construct a three bay express lube, an oil facility plus a small office, and storage area. The site plan is laid out in a fashion to keep a minimum 48.67 foot setback off Cantrell Road. This lot is within the Hwy. 10 Overlay. However, a pre-existing size permits a PD -C to build closer and provide less than the overlay standard. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is a weed lot with a drainage ditch running north and south. The adjacent lot to the west is a mini -warehouse complex. Kroger is across Cantrell and a mix of commercial and residential lies to the east. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The Pankey and Secluded Hills Neighborhood Associations were notified. FILE NO:: z -6179-A Cont. qP E. F. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Submit grading and drainage plan for approval prior to construction. 2. Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial, dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 3. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage along east property line. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start work. 5. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-of-way. 6. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. UTILITIES: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: No comment at this writing. County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No regular bus service, Hwy. 10 Express only. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Detail on retaining wall, type, height and whether a fence on top be required. 2. Need lighting scheme. 3. Detail on building signage. 4. Hours of operation. 5. Type of construction, brick, metal, etc. Planning: The site is in the River Mountain District. The Plan recommends Commercial use. The request is for Commercial use. In the last five years there have been two changes in the area. One shifted the location of a 'Low Density Residential' area north of Cantrell Road. This area is currently under review. The Neighborhood Committee is not expected to recommend any land use changes in this area. The other changed a 'Park/Open Space' area to 'Single Family' east of Pankey. The Plan does not meet the Highway 2 FI1fE NO.: Z -6179-A Cont. 10 Overlay Standards. If the structure and landscape are of superior design and quality (not a metal building), the application can meet the spirit of the Overlay. There is no land use issue. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen is required to help screen this site from residential properties to the south and east. This screen may be a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. A sprinkler system to water landscaped areas is a requirement of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• Staff view of this application is that, this is a good trade off for the car wash previously approved. The building is basically the name and little else has changed. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as filed subject to Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Mr. Robert Brown was present. There was a brief discussion of this item. No problems were noted. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of introducing the application and presenting the staff recommendation. Wood identified this application has having a single remaining issue and this being the reason for retention on the regular agenda. The remaining item being a requested waiver of the required fencing along the east and south property lines in the form of opaque screening. Wood stated, because of this requested variance that Mr. Bob Brown of the department had been instructed to visit the site and prepare comments relative to the fencing issue. Bob Brown of the staff came to the lectern and begin comments. He began those by saying the property to the south and east are basically residential. He stated that the fence could be shrubs or some 3 FILE NO:: Z -6179-A (Cont.) other device. He said that he did not see a problem. If the developer chose to install evergreen shrubs, they should be planted closely and at least 30 inches in height at planting and be able to grow to a height of 6 feet within 3 years. Mr. Brown felt it would be especially important to provide the screening area along the east line adjacent to an existing residence. He pointed out, to the south of the nearest residence is perhaps 180 feet. This is, of course, across a wide flood plain area and the screening to the south would not be that effective. He stated his recommendation would be that screening be provided immediately south along the east property line from the southern most parking area to shield the residential lot from the activity area. He stated the shrubs should be at least 4 feet in height to effectively provide screening to the southeast. At the conclusion of Mr. Brown's comments, Chairman Lichty asked Robert Brown, the applicant, if he was prepared to present his case. Prior to Mr. Brown initiating his comments, Commissioner Nunnley identified for the record that he was going to have to excuse himself from discussion on this item and he left the room. Mr. Brown approached the lectern and stated that it was not their desire here to not provide any screening at all here. He felt it was simply more appropriate here to not do the normal privacy fence but perform a landscape treatment. The primary reason being that on the south end of the property there is a large floodway. He pointed out the property immediate on the east side of this proposed development is still residentially zoned. The property to the east is zoned commercial on the land use plan. Mr. Brown pointed out some of the features of the land use plan and what properties the commercial zoning on the plan include. Therefore, he felt there was a good chance at some point in the feature the lands in the east would be developed commercially. But, they would be glad to do the alternative landscaping treatment. Chairman Lichty then asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the application. There was no response. The Chairman then pointed out that there were two cards submitted in opposition. He identified the first of these as Lou Sullen. Prior to Ms. Sullen coming to the lectern, Chairman Lichty excused himself from the room temporarily and offered the chair to Commissioner Earnest. Ms. Sullen came forward and identified herself as involved in the property ownership to the east and offered specific comments relative to the proposal of this developer to construct a retaining wall along the west side of the ditch. She indicated that she would like the same treatment on her side of the ditch, and the ditch be maintained on the west side of that wall. She stated that was the only objection she had. She offered photographs in support of her comments. Commissioner Rahman asked if there was a drainage easement along the ditch at this time. Jim Lawson of the staff asked David Scherer of Public Works if he could comment on this and/or Mr. Brown, the applicant. 4 FILE NO:: Z -6179-A (Cont. Acting Chairman Earnest at this point injected a question too. He asked Ms. Sullen if she had additional comments on this issue. The additional comments she had to offer had to do with the state of existing structures vagrants and other activities that were detrimental to the area. She stated that she wants a fence up. The Chairman then recognized Robert Brown, representing the applicant. Mr. Brown identified for the Commission on some graphics offered that there is a large box culvert coming under State Hwy. 10. Entering the property, there is a sizable drainage ditch at this point. He pointed out that the current flow line of the ditch is sort of southwesterly through what is proposed to be the parking lot and then dumps further south into the creek. He stated that what they were basically proposing was to fill a pad on which this development can be placed much the same as they had proposed on the previous project. He stated that the scale of this project did not require the placement of the ditch in a structure underground as was originally proposed on the car wash proposal. That at this time the proposal 'is to build a wall that will hold up their fill work and there would then be created a ditch along their east boundary. He stated that their hope was the ditch could be done in grass and the velocity would not require a paved or hard treatment of the bottom. Commissioner Rahman then followed up on his earlier question by asking, "Was the maintenance of the ditch to remain with this property owner?" Mr. Brown stated, "Yes, that it was." Commissioner Rahman wanted to make sure that he understood the maintenance was this developer then it would be the responsibility of this developer to maintain. Robert Brown stated the drainage is currently on this property and it will remain on this property. Commissioner Hawn at this point inserted a comment that he felt if there was a problem here, then it was the lady who just made the comments. These comments would not be Mr. Brown's comments. He asked Mr. Brown, "What would be the problem with moving the wall to the property line?" Mr. Brown stated that he felt the wall was not a part of their structure and it is just a wall. Mr. Brown continued by saying no this is not the case that the wall holds up the pad on which the development would be placed. The wall was at the height indicated because the land is very low in this area. This project would be filled to raise the land out of the floodplain. There were several comments back and forth between Commissioner Hawn and Mr. Brown as to who would be flooded and who would not and what the source of the flooding would be. Mr. Brown stated that this pad development was perhaps less than what was proposed in the last approved plan. Jim Lawson interrupted the discussion to address the issue and stated to the Chairman that the staff does not have the final design of this project at this point. But, it will be worked out once this is approved. The Public Works Department will have to 5 FILE NC.': Z -6179-A (Cont. work through that to approve it. But for the Commission to sit here today and try to work out a design as to how tall the walls should be is not what we normally do. When the design gets to this point, perhaps the engineer, this developer and the next door neighbor could get together to meet on the site and go over the proposal. The Commission and staff are just not at the point for design at this time. This would be very unusual for us to try to work this out today. Robert Brown stated that if the next door neighbor chooses to fill their side also, then the same option is available to them. This is a similar solution for the wall along their side of the ditch. There was another extended discussion as to who would be flooded, where and when involving Mr. Brown and Commissioner Hawn. At this point, Chairman Lichty re-entered the room and reassumed the chairmanship. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Faust for comment. Her comment briefly reduced is, why this is coming to the Commission as a planned development. She stated that she did not understand exactly why this is the case. Jim Lawson of the staff offered a brief history and update. He indicated this was a planned commercial development previously approved for a multibay carwash on the site. This project apparently did not work, so the owner now proposes to construct a lube and oil facility with possibly one carwash bay. Because this is an amendment to that planned development, it has to go back through the same process. He concluded his remarks by stating that the previous project proposed placed the drainage underground in a pipe, but this project will leave the ditch open. The drainage issue will be handled by Public Works at a later point. A gentleman addressing the issue from the audience asked, "What happened to the culvert or the underground drainage that was proposed on the other project? Lawson responded by saying this developer simply wanted a different approach to deal with their fill material. During the course of another lengthy discussion of issues, the Chairman directed the gentleman in the audience identify himself. He identified himself as Woody Taylor and then proceeded to offer brief comments on the wall and fence and location. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer of Public Works for his comments. Mr. Scherer offered the comment that filling in the floodplain is permitted. He also identified some floodplain floodway lines on the graphics that were presented to the Commission. He continued by saying that Mr. Robert Brown representing the owner had offered to construct the ditch to carry the drainage from that box culvert under Hwy. 10 within the boundary of their property and he would not address the screening issue. The Commission since it is presented here with a planned development could offer as condition that erosion protection for the ditch bank and make sure that it was designed for proper 6 FILE NO.': Z -6179-A (Cont. erosion control and make sure it stayed in there and handle the capacity of the culvert. Chairman Lichty pointed out at this point it is not the Commission's job to deal with the drainage issue. He then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the issue before the Commission was a land use issue and the land use apparently was compatible with the plan. The Commission are not planners nor engineers. Planning and Public Works should resolve problems and they should be able to do this. He stated that the Commission is not capable of measuring walls, floods and such issues. Chairman Lichty pointed out that in the staff write-up and the consent agenda, staff recommended approval subject to Public Works comments. He asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in behalf or against this application. There being none he stated the Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Rahman offered a motion to the effect that the Commission approve the application as filed subject to. The motion was interrupted at this point. The Chairman asked staff to clarify the issue on the waiver. Richard Wood of the staff identified that there was a 6 foot opaque fence required along the south and east property lines. Mr. Brown of staff comments will serve this purpose without the structural involvement. At this point, the staff recommendation is that the full screen all the way around not be required but allow the applicant to work with Mr. Brown to provide an appropriate vegetation. Jim Lawson inserted a follow-up comment that the staff would within a year go back and check the vegetation planted to make it does grow. Chairman Lichty then asked Commissioner Rahman if he would amend his motion to include a condition on meeting all of the concerns of Public Works and staff. Commissioner Rahman responded by saying yes, he would amend his motion in this manner. The motion received a second. The vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 7