HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6318 Staff AnalysisNO.: Z-6318
NAME: Dairyland Shopping Center
a) Rezoning to Long -Form PCD
b) Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: South of Chenal Parkway and east of Kirk Road
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Joe D. Whisenhunt Development Consultants, Inc.
Whisenhunt Investments 2200 North Rodney Parham Road
Rt. 2, Box 150 Little Rock, AR 72212
Bee Branch, AR 72013
AREA: 25.29 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET:
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial
PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 Ellis Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES/WAIVERS/DEFERRAL REQUESTED:
1. Reduced spacing of driveways along Kirk Road.
2. Additional driveway on Kanis Road for service access.
3. Median cut on Chenal Parkway for western driveway.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
The applicant has requested a change in the Land Use Plan from
Mixed Office Warehouse to Commercial. Planning Staff recommended
a change to Mixed Office Commercial. The item was heard by the
Planning Commission on June 12, 1997. A motion to change the
Land Use Plan to Commercial failed with 4 ayes, 5 nays and
2 absent.
A. PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes a one lot preliminary plat and a
rezoning to PCD on 25 acres. Phase I will be constructed
upon approval. Phase II will be initiated within a 3 year
period.
FILE NO.:. Z-6318 Cont )
Phase I
• 64,650 sq. ft. Kroger market
• 6,000 sq. ft. retail shops
• 9,100 sq. ft. freestanding retail
• 1.07 acre lease parcel #1
• 702 parking spaces
Phase II
■ 125,000 sq. ft. multiple use retail
• 1.25 acre lease parcel #3
■ 1.17 acre lease parcel #2
■ 318 parking spaces
Proposed uses are compiled from an edited listing of C-3
users and are as follows:
I. PERMITTED USES
a. Amusement, (commercial, inside).
b. Animal Clinic (enclosed).
C. Antique shop.
d. Appliance repair.
e. Auto parts and accessories.
f. Bakery or confectionary shop.
g. Bank or savings and loan office.
h. Bar, lounge or tavern.
i. Barber and beauty shop.
j. Beverage shop.
k. Book and stationery store.
1. Butcher shop.
M. Cabinet and woodwork shop.
n. Camera shop.
o. Catering, commercial.
P. Church.
q. Cigar, tobacco and candy store.
r. Clinic (medical, dental or optical).
S. Clothing store.
W. Community welfare or health center.
X. Convenience food store with gas pumps and enclosed
car wash.
aa. Custom sewing and millinery.
bb. Day nursery or day care center.
CC. Drugstore or pharmacy.
dd. Duplication shop.
ee. Eating place without drive-in service.
ff. Establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic or
psychiatric patients.
gg. Establishment of a religious, charitable or
philanthropic organization.
hh. Feed store.
ii. Florist shop.
jj. Food store.
kk. Furniture store.
E
FILE ATC.- Z-5318 (Cont.)
mm. Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork.
nn. Hardware or sporting goods store.
oo. Health studio or spa.
pp. Hobby shop.
qq. Hospital.
ss. Jewelry store.
tt. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting.
uu. Key shop.
VV. Laboratory.
ww. Laundromat or pickup station.
yy. Lawn and garden center, enclosed.
ZZ. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use.
bbb. Medical appliance fittings and sales.
ccc. Mortuary or funeral home.
eee. Office (general and professional).
fff. Office, showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,
enclosed.
ggg. Office equipment sales and services.
hhh. Optical shop.
iii. Paint and wallpaper store.
111. Pet shop.
mmm. Photography studio.
nnn. Private school, kindergarten or institution for
special education.
000. Private club with dining or bar service.
ppp. Recycling facility, automated.
qqq. Retail uses not listed (enclosed).
rrr. School (business).
sss. School (commercial, trade, or craft).
ttt. School (public or denominational).
uuu. Seasonal and temporary sales, outside.
WWW. Service station.
xxx. Shoe repair.
yyy. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other
artistic _endeavors_)_._
zzz. Shoe repair.
cccc. Tool and equipment rental (inside display only).
dddd. Travel bureau.
II. CONDITIONAL USES (TO BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT)
a. Ambulance service post.
e. Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair).
i. Car wash (full service).
k. Glass or glazer. Installation, repair, and sales.
1. Home center.
M. Landscape service.
n. Lawn and garden center, open display.
P. Miniwarehouse (conditioned space).
r. Office warehouse.
t. Service station with limited motor vehicle repair.
V. Swimming pool sales and supply.
Chenal Parkway driveways are requested to be as follows:
3
FILE NO.:. Z-6318 _ (Cont.
• The western drive is proposed to have a median cut and be
a full functioning access for right and left turn
movements. A left turn lane is shown to be painted in
with the street improvement work.
■ The eastern drive will be right turn in and out and will
be constructed per Master Street Plan (MSP) standards.
No median cut is requested.
Two driveways are shown with access to Kanis Road. The
southern drive is primarily a service drive for trucks. The
northern drive is the main access to Kroger and lease parcel
#1. Both Kanis driveways serve the 9,100 square feet
freestanding retail/restaurant.
There are two phase II access points from the proposed
extension of Kirk Road via Chenal Parkway. These driveways
allow traffic to flow into the proposed phase II parking
areas.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property is vacant. Portions of the parcel have
recently been filled with dirt from the new target site on
Chenal Parkway at West.Markham.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Parkway Place Neighborhood Association was noticed on
June 4, 1997 of this rezoning. Staff has received no
adverse public comments on this matter.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS:
1. Construct Chenal Parkway curb to 33 feet from
centerline, the entrances are to have deceleration
lanes, islands and are limited to right -turn -out only
per adopted Master Street Plan. Construct 7 foot island
(1/2 of complete island for length of property).
Dedicate right-of-way to 60 feet from centerline.
2. Lease parcels #1, 2, and 3 will not be allowed access to
public streets per ordinance. Future drives should not
create "T" intersections.
3. Kirk Road intersection shall be constructed to Master
Street Plan adopted standards with islands and
acceleration lanes. Kanis Road intersection shall be
constructed to same standard.
4. Two driveways will be acceptable on Kanis Road, as long
as, South Drive is 27 feet wide and has limited access
for vehicles and is designated as trucks only - remove
parking and parking isle connections.
Kirk Road Drives are acceptable as long as - south
driveway is 27 feet wide and marked "trucks only."
5. Dedicate easement for floodway.
4
FILE NO.T Z-6318 JCont.)
6. A grading permit and development permit for special
flood hazard area are required prior to construction.
Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work.
Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of
work.
7. All driveways shall have concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
8. Provide striping and signage plans for the development,
for Traffic Engineering approval.
9. Master Street Plan revision for Kirk Road alignment
required prior to Planning Commission approval of 2-
6318.
10. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of
11,000.
11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
12. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Section
31-403.
13. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for
approval prior to start of work.
14. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Section 31-175
and the "MSP".
E. UTILITIES•
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements.
SID 247 Reimbursement Fees required for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: No Comment.
Southwestern Hell: No Comment.
Water: On site fire protection required. Pro rata front
footage of $15/ft. applies, also acreage charge of
$300/acre. If relocation of any water facilities is
required relocation will be done at the expense of the
developer.
Fire Department: Are buildings to be sprinkled?
CATA•
Outside service area though long-term we believe will be
asked to extend service to these growth areas perhaps using
large buses 35' to 401, or maybe with smaller buses or vans.
For transit to be effective, provisions should be made for
pedestrian access to and within the development. For future
transit service, there should be an appropriate circulation
pattern within the development for buses, or a clear,
accessible, and well-defined pathway from Chenal to the main
part of the retail building. There should be a bus turnout
on both sides of Chenal if there is the possibility for a
safe pedestrian crossing at the location.
In general, we would like to see developments sited so that
bus patrons can access the development within a reasonable
walking distance of the major street.
5
FILE NO.: Z-6318 (Cont.)
F. ISSUES TECHNICAL DESIGN:
Issues:
• Applicant has not requested possible use of drive-thru
facilities. Drive-thrus will not be permitted.
• Adjacent landowners within a 200 foot radius were noticed
14 days prior to hearing date. Fifteen day minimum is
required by Planning Commission By -Laws Article IV
4b.(2).
• The Land Use Plan Amendment issue has not been resolved.
Landscape:
Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with
ordinance requirements.
Opaque screening, either a wood fence, wall or dense
evergreen plantings are required to also help screen this
site from the residential property to the southeast.
The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving a many
existing trees, including those along Chenal Parkway, as
feasible. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape
Ordinance requirements can be given when existing trees of
six inch caliper or larger are saved.
Planning Division: Major Land Use Plan change required to
Commercial to accommodate this rezoning request. Planning
Commission hearing June 12, 1997.
G. ANALYSIS•
Staff is not prepared to proceed with this requested
rezoning. The Land Use Plan designation for the site is not
resolved at the time this staff report is being prepared.
Adjacent land owners were not noticed as required by
Planning Commission Bylaws. The Subdivision Committee
concurred with staff's request for a deferral.
The applicant's representative offers the following written
response to the request for a deferral:
"We do not wish to have our PCD hearing
deferred unless there are further design issues
that could be resolved. If the plan amendment
we proposed is not approved as commercial, we
will still want to proceed through the PCD
process for a hearing at the Planning
Commission. -
6
FILE NO.: Z-6318 (Cont.) -
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
DEFERRAL of the rezoning request to PD -C and a one lot
preliminary plat. The Planning Commission should determine
an appropriate public hearing date.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
Dai land Sho in Center Z-6318
a. Rezoning to Long -Form PCD
b. Preliminary Plat
Planning Staff Comments:
• Show city boundary line on exhibit.
■ Show adjacent owners and zoning.
• Provide a list of proposed uses.
• Elevations and design.
• Number all parking spaces.
• Chenal Parkway driveways should be
(JUNE 5, 1997)
right turn in and right
turnout.
■ Only one driveway will be allowed on Kanis.
• Possible deferral of item. The applicant has requested a
change in the Land Use Plan from Mixed Office Warehouse to
Commercial. Staff has recommended denial and suggested Mixed
Office Commercial. The public hearing at the Planning
Commission is June 12, 1997. If anything other than
commercial is approved by the Planning Commission than the
rezoning and plat will be deferred.
■ Dumpster locations.
Planning Staff requested a deferral of this item. Chairman
Putnam agreed that the item be deferred.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 26, 1997)
Staff presented the project by indicating that the applicant did
not agree with the staff request for a deferral. Chairman Lichty
stated that the Commission initially would discuss if a deferral
was appropriate.
Robert Brown and Joe Whisenhunt stated that they wanted to
proceed with the hearing on the PCD request. Chairman Lichty,
Hawn, Brandon and Rahman all stated during a discussion period
that the item should be deferred.
Mr. Whisenhunt said that he might add a small percentage of
office to the project. Jim Lawson said the applicant has taken a
all or nothing approach in respect to the proposed commercial
uses. After more discussion back and forth the applicant agreed
7
FILE,NO.. Z-6318 (Cont.) -
to a deferral to examine a mixed office and commercial
development.
Motion to defer the item to August 7, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Motion passed with 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention, and
3 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
(JULY 17, 1997)
The matter of the Land Use Plan change will be presented to the
Board of Directors on August 5, 1997, two days preceding the
rehearing by the Commission.
Staff will report at the August 7th meeting on the Board action.
COMMUNICATION UPDATE FROM DEVELOPER: (JULY 18, 1997)
Mr. Robert Brown representing the applicant has submitted to
staff three letters to update the application and amend certain
elements. The first of these letters is as follows:
(Letter No. 1 dated June 27, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
DCI Project #97-105
Dear Richard:
I provided three copies of our revised PCD Site Plan to Larry
Jones yesterday, prior to our Planning Commission Hearing. I did
not have time to prepare my usual cover letter recapping the
specific changes that were made. This letter is provided for
your information to cover those items.
1. Phasing: I have added an additional phase for a total of
three. The Phase 2 now includes only the first retail
building, west of the Kroger Store. Phase 3 involves the
construction of Kirk Road and the balance of parking and
building areas west of Phases 1 and 2. The total time
frames remain the same.
2. Median Cut on Chenal Parkway: We have agreed that the
median cut would be eliminated when the western part of the
project is completed and an alternative access is available
by Kirk Road. A note is added to the drawing to specify
this feature is temporary.
3. Service Drive: We have reduced the width of entry points
at each end of the service drive. We have also revised the
parking and drive layout for the Retail/Restaurant building
to limit the use of the service drive as an access to that
site. The Retail/Restaurant building shape was amended and
the building area reduced slightly.
8
FILE No. -:-Z-6318 (Cont.)
4. Project information: All items affected by the change in
parking spaces and building area have been revised to
reflect the revised plan proposal.
5. Chenal Median: Our plan now indicates construction of the
south half of the median with a permanent curb on the south
edge and a temporary asphalt curb along the north edge
(center line) that would later be removed when the north
half of the median is built to a full 14 foot width.
6. Usage: We also need to specify on our proposed list of
users to provide for drive-through window pick-up
facilities. This would primarily support eating
establishments, however, could also be utilized in other
businesses (such as banks, cleaners, video stores, etc.).
Larry Jones had previously stated this element of use was
not allowed as we did not define it specifically in our
original request.
(Letter No. 2 dated July 18, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
DCI Project #97-105
Dear Richard:
I am providing this letter as our formal notification to amend
part of our PCD application. We are requesting a change to the
land use limitations of the application to incorporate office
uses within the Phase 3 portion of the project. We will commit
fifteen percent of the overall building/s areas to be developed
for office uses. This percentage may be achieved by qualified
office use to be allowed include those listed under the C-3,
General Office District regulations.
To coordinate with this change to our PCD application, we have
notified the City Clerk's Office of to our request to change our
Land Use Plan Amendment application. We have revised our
original request to propose amending the land use designation tc
Mixed Office and Commercial. This will comply with the staff
recommendation given at the Planning Commission level of review.
A copy of the letter to Robbie Hancock is attached.
(Letter No. 3 dated July 18, 1997)
Re: Dairyland Shopping Center PCD
Land Use Plan Amendment Request
DCI Project #97-105
Dear Robbie:
Pursuant to our conversation, we request that you amend our
original request to change the Land Use Plan from Mixed Office
9
FILE. NO. Z-6318 Cont.}
and Warehouse (MOW) to Commercial (C). We are now asking for a
change to Mixed office and commercial (MOC). This will be in
compliance with the recommendation made by the planning staff, in
response to our original request to change to Commercial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(AUGUST 7, 1997)
This item is a companion item to B-1 which is the proposed land
use plan change to accommodate this development. The Chairman
addressed the applicant by stating it is a precarious question as
to the presenting of zoning action following the vote to deny the
land use plan change. Chairman Lichty asked the applicant, Mr.
Whisenhunt, to come forward and offer comments on his
application.
Mr. Whisenhunt identified himself as the developer and offered a
brief description of the proposal and referred to basic
information on the plan and the proposal as discussed in the land
use plan amendment. He believed that all of the various elements
of the plan had been worked out with staff such as the street,
points of access, use mix and that sort of thing. Following his
presentation, Commissioner Adcock posed a question as to what
might possibly be located here other than the proposed Kroger
store. His response was basically large box type retail stores.
He offered a comparison commentary with his center on Hwy. 10 and
potential uses that could possibly have been placed there and
lost opportunities. He also stated that in his plan in an
agreement with the Planning Staff he had changed his plan to
reflect that by the time he reached phase 3 of the project they
would have 15% of the gross floor area devoted to office space.
Mr. Robert Brown then took the microphone and proceeded to give
further description of the project, the phasing and how various
elements would work. In a response to a question from
Commissioner Hugh Earnest, Mr. Brown again restated the phasing
scheme of the project indicating on a graphic where the lines
would be drawn. Mr. Brown also indicated that all of the various
points of discussion are indicated in the letter attached to and
presented with the staff's agenda. At this point, the Chairman
recognized Mr. Ronald Hopper.
Mr. Hopper identified himself as an adjacent property owner. His
first comment was a question as to what the Commission is doing
now relative to what it did earlier on the land use and what
ramifications are attached. His concern was why was the
Commission permitting the hearing on this case when they had just
voted not to allow the land use change which would allow this
use. It was pointed out to Mr. Hopper that appeals would require
that some consideration be given to both should the applicant
desire to pursue those. The conversation then moved to Mr.
Hopper's comments on the area in general and his having lived
there in an earlier time. Mr. Hopper offered some history on the
neighborhood. A lengthy discussion followed between Mr. Hopper,
staff and some commissioners relative to the development of
10
FILE.No Z-6318 Cont.
various properties along Chenal Parkway. Mr. Hopper concluded
his remarks by stating that he was supportive of this project.
The Chairman then directed a question to staff. If the Commission
acts on this item and if it is approved given what happened with
the land use plan vote what is staff position. Jim Lawson, of
the Staff, briefly stated that staff was not going to change its
recommendation. He stated that staff still wants to recommend
the MOC when this item goes before the City Board of Directors
and if the Board denies the MOC, then that will be City policy.
In that instance, the staff would be willing to drop its support
for this action.
Lawson stated that he felt it puts everyone in a bind, but the
Commission needed to proceed. He also stated that the
Commission, even though they denied the MOC land use change, they
can go ahead and support this action. The City Board of
Directors in the final analysis will have to deal with this.
Chairman Lichty pointed out it looked like we were going to have
a quorum problem. It was pointed out that once the applicant
receives some action on this case, he can proceed onto the City
Board.
The discussion then turned to the action that was taken by the
Commission and the closeness of the vote. At this point, Jim
Lawson, of the Staff, again restated that the Commission was not
bound by the plan and could go ahead and vote to deny or
recommend approval of the rezoning.
After a brief discussion between Commissioner Adcock, Chairman
Lichty and Jim Lawson, the Chairman determined that it was
appropriate to ask the applicant if he desired a vote on this
item at this time. Mr. Whisenhunt stated that yes he wanted a
vote today. At this point, several commissioners discussed with
the applicant the design of the project, the appropriateness of
it considering its location specifically design elements such as
wrap around parking were discussed as being better designed for
access. Mr. Whisenhunt responded to Commissioner Berry's
questions about design by stating that Kroger only had a design
approval on this and he and the architect had the design
responsibility and much like the Hwy. 10 location they would
design a project that would be consistent with the area. This
project will not look anything like the Hwy. 10 project. Mr.
Whisenhunt then entered upon a lengthy discussion of design.
At the conclusion of his remarks, the Chair recognized
Commissioner Brandon who raised the question of berms along the
roadways for purpose of shielding from view some of the
automobiles. Mr. Whisenhunt responded by stating that he had
provided for a large landscape buffer area all around the
perimeter of the property that will be 45 feet wide with berms 3
1/2 to 4 feet tall.
A discussion then moved to design consideration such as the
outparcels containing structures with loud or bright colors. At
this point, Mr. Whisenhunt also injected comments concerning
11
FILE NO.: Z-5318 Cont.
signs. He said there would be no pylon signs only ground
monument type signs. A question was then offered by a
commissioner as to the median cut that was proposed. Mr.
Whisenhunt pointed to the graphic illustration and indicated the
various points of access including Kirk Road and the points
between that and Kanis Road intersection. The question was posed
during this discussion as to the timeframe for constructing Kirk
Road. Robert Brown, representing the applicant, stated that it
was covered in the letter of information which is provided in the
commission's packet.
Commissioner Adcock then posed a question as to the area behind
the shopping center. Would there be screening? Mr. Brown
addressed this by saying that the specifics of the landscape plan
were not in place yet, but it is part of their landscape area and
screening plan. Commissioner Adcock then moved her comments to
the site preparation and she pointed out the significant amount
of foliage trees and natural growth had been removed or
destroyed. Mr. Whisenhunt's reply was that on the rear portion
of the property where most of the vegetation existed has been
filled as deep as 25 feet to bring it up to usable grade.
Commissioner Adcock then moved her conversation to the area of
screening. Once again Mr. Brown representing Mr. Whisenhunt came
forward and stated that there would be a six foot high privacy
fence along the entire southern edge of the project. He stated
there would be almost 38 feet of green space offered along the
south boundary where some additional vegetation can be planted
including trees. Mr. Brown stated also there was probably 200 to
300 feet of floodway running across the south side of this
project which could not be built upon which offered additional
separation and buffer.
After another brief discussion of miscellaneous matters, the
Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn for purposes of a motion.
Commissioner Hawn moved that the Commission approve the
application as filed and amended by various letters, discussions
and agreements of record at this hearing today. The motion was
seconded. A vote on the motion produced 5 ayes, 3 nays and 3
absent. The motion failed and the application was denied.
12
,Augu t 1997 -
{
IT NO. • B-1
NAME:
City Land Use Plan Amendment --
Ellis Mountain District
LOCATION: South of Chenal Parkway, west of
Kanis
REQUEST: Mixed Office Warehouse to
Commercial
SOURCE:
STAFF REPORT:
Property Owner
At the request of a property owner, planning staff developed
an amendment to commercial for an area south of Chenal
Parkway, west of Kanis Road. The property owner wishes to
allow commercial uses for the site. As stated in the letter
of request, this location is an appropriate location for a
grocery store. Currently the Land Use Plan recommends Mixed
Office Warehouse. The land use pattern in the immediate area
(along Chenal Parkway) has not changed in the last ten years.
However to the North there have been several changes. In
1995, a Neighborhood Commercial and Suburban Office area was
moved south from the Loyola --Wellington Village Road
intersection to north of the Methodist Church. Also in 1995,
south of the West Loop a Multifamily and Community Shopping
area was changed to Office, Mixed Office Commercial and
Multifamily -- an urban village'. To the East of Rock Creek,
an area was changed from Low Density Multifamily to Suburban
Office and Single Family.
The Chenal Parkway/Kirk Road area is currently not fully
developed. There is vacant commercial (C3), office (03) and
multifamily (MF18) areas to the North and west. Rock Creek
provides a barrier to the South; however, with single family
across the creek care should be taken along the creek edge.
There is available vacant commercially zoned property to the
East and west. The City has consistently been opposed to
commercial zoning of the area in question. Concerns about
strip commercial, etc. have been the issues.
This request would significantly increase the commercial areas
in the vicinity. There has not been any indication of need
for more commercial land. Large areas remain undeveloped and
new residential or intensification of residential have not
occurred. In addition to the size of the commercial
expansion, there is an additional area to the West that may
also ask for commercial if this is granted. The result is
likely to be another Bowman/Markham/Chenal/Kanis area -- large
box commercial. The Plans intent to have a mix of uses would
August 7, 1997
SUBbIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.)
be lost in the Kanis/Chenal/Kirk area as it has been in the
Bowman/Chenal/Markham/Kanis area.
If this area is changed to commercial over a mile stretch of
Chenal Parkway would be commercial. This will effectively
strip the parkway way. Considering comments from citizens
about previous commercialization of Chenal Parkway, Staff
believes the mixing of uses is still to preferred development
pattern. To that end Mixed Office Warehouse is appropriate or
a change to Mixed Office and Commercial would be appropriate.
Such a change would permit to a grocery store as suggested by
the application as long as other non-commercial using are also
included in the development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends deferral as filed. A change to Mixed
Office Commercial is appropriate.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 12, 1997)
Walter Malone, Planning Manager, presented the item. Mr.
Malone reviewed the Land Use Plan in the area. Staff's
concern is that if this location is changed to Commercial, the
result would be in strip commercial for over a mile in both
directions along Chenal Parkway. In addition, staff is
concerned that the commercial could continue to the west to
the West Loop at Kanis Road. At the request of the Plans
Committee, the Land Use Plan for a two mile radius is shown as
well as a map of commercial with acreage. These maps show
numerous commercial sites (vacant) both to the northwest and
east -- several are over 10 acres.
Staff wishes to prevent another commercial strip and believes
that Mixed Office Commercial is a good compromise. As long as
there is some office in the development than the request would
be in conformance. Commissioner Earnest read a section of the
staff report dealing with need for more commercial.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the requirements of Mixed
Office Commercial. There was some discussion of the use
pattern allowed - Office or Mixed Office and Commercial with a
PZD.
Robert Brown, Development Consultants, spoke for the applicant.
Mr. Brown reviewed the reason why this site had been selected for
the request - access, visibility, spacing, growth potential. This
site would reduce trip distance and provide a destination point,
with larger retailers.
2
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.) -
Joe Whisenhunt, the developer of the shopping center, stated other
sites were reviewed but none met the requirements. This would be
a destination center providing all shopping needs. Kroger is
opposed to a mix with Office due to traffic volumes, etc.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, asked that the Plan be
followed. Ms. Bell raised concern about traffic intensity,
stripping with commercial, creating another bottleneck.
There was discussion about the Kanis Study and having that group
review the implication. Commissioner Berry and Tony Bozynski,
Assistant Director of Planning, provided information on the status
of the Kanis Study. In response to a question by Chairman Lichty,
there was discussion about service area, etc. Commissioners
Daniel and Berry discussed the need for commercial and in
particular a grocery. Also discussed was the reduced trip length.
The Commission discussed deferral to allow the Kanis "Public
Meeting" to occur first. There was discussion about the
employment to be added, etc. After much discussion about
potential deferral dates and whether that would work for the
applicant. The applicant asked for a vote.
Commissioner Hawn moved the Plan be amended to Commercial (Daniel
seconded). By a vote of 4 for, 5 against the item failed to be
approved. Based on the vote, the item is forwarded to the Board
with a recommendation of denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997)
Richard Wood, Manager of Subdivision and zoning, informed the
Commission that the Board of Directors forwarded the Land Use
Plan Amendment on the Dairy Land site back to the Commission.
Walter Malone, Manager of Planning, reviewed the original
request, MOW to Commercial which the Commission voted 4 for,
5 against. The applicant has amended their request to Mixed
Office Commercial. At the previous hearing, staff had
indicated this use was a reasonable compromise.
Commissioner Earnest asked that the map showing commercial
areas around the site be shown. Mr. Earnest distributed
copies of the Board communication on this item and pointed the
Commission's attention to several sections. (The significant
increase in commercial in the area where no additional need
has been shown). Mr. Malone reviewed the map showing
commercial acreage in a 2 mile area around the site.
Commissioner Earnest next referred to a second section dealing
with concern of further commercialization with "Big Box" type
uses. Mr. Malone stated staff hoped with the Mix Office
Commercial use this could be prevented. To the question about
what percentage of office, Mr. Malone stated there was no
3
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
NO.: B-1 (Con
specified percentage in the Plan. Mr. Lawson, Director,
confirmed this.
Commissioner Earnest asked if there was sufficient commercial
in the area to meet the needs. Mr. Malone responded that
based on the Extraterritorial Plan there should be sufficient
area since the use pattern has not significantly changed.
There was additional discussion about this issue.
Commissioner Putnam asked about the amount of commercial shown
at Kirk and Chenal. Mr. Malone indicated the area was just
short of thirty acres. To a second question from Mr. Putnam,
Mr. Malone indicated staff felt Mixed Office Commercial was
appropriate.
Commissioner Hawn, asked what was the need to "compromise"
with Mixed Office Commercial. Mr. Malone stated staff felt
this was a "business" area and as long as there was a mix it
would work. Commissioner Hawn stated that does not express a
need to compromise.
Commissioner Berry asked about the ratio of office in past
MOC areas. Mr. Malone responded that the MOC definition had
just been changed (last 6 months) to require at least some
office in all MOC areas. Therefore, there is no track record.
Commissioner Berry expressed the need to have a minimum
threshold for office as part of the Plan. Mr. Lawson
explained the problems with doing this in a Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Earnest read the following in to the record:
I would ask that we consider the following
information in our deliberations today.
The land use plan of the city should be supported
unless there is an overriding public interest in
and need for change. It must be clearly
demonstrated that insufficient areas have been
identified to accommodate growth and expansion.
In this particular issue that is before you,
the map that is attached clearly shows the
existence of sufficient commercial land that
is available on the market. Our staff report
states "There has not been any indication of
need for more commercial land."
The developer has made a decision, based on
his interests, that this parcel is needed and
necessary for the anticipated development of
a grocery store. It is probable, given the
abundance of suitable and appropriately
4
August 7, 1997
SUBDIVISION
TEM NO.: B-1 (Cont.)
classified land in the area that his decision
was based solely on the price of the land in
question.
Support of the land use plan is of benefit to the public
and the developer. A clear and defined public policy
that reduces or eliminates confusion is of benefit to all
parties.
Support of an existing land use plan sends a
clear message to all parties that speculation
on undeveloped parcels will be minimized.
Changes to the land use plan will be made
based on a publicly identified need. In
addition, as changes are made they should not
occur incrementally, but rather as part of a
comprehensive review of existing land use
patterns over a large area.
It is imperative that all parties adhere to one set of
rules that is consistently and evenly applied.
Commissioner Putnam made a motion the Land Use Plan be amended
as proposed. Mr. Putnam followed with a statement of why this
area will be commercial. By a vote of 5 for 3 against the
item failed.
5