Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6406 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-6406 NAME: Parkway Motors PD -C Short -Form LOCATION: 12200 Block of West Markham Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Ron Tabor Joe White, Jr. Flake, Tabor, Turner & Kelly White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 0.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: C-3 ALLOWED USES: (being rezoned to PD -C) PROPOSED USE• VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: FT. NEW STREET: None Auto Dealership (Mazda) No other use indicated. Auto Sales This tract is a remnant from the various actions that created the Rock Creek Parkway and later what is now Chenal Parkway. When Markham Street was realigned to the north, this triangle was created. Most of the time since annexation this lot has been zoned C-3. A. PROPOSAL/RE VEST: To create a commercial lot with one building and twenty-nine (29) parking spaces. The intended use is auto sales allied with the new Mazda dealer being developed across Markham Street. There will be no access from W. Markham Street. Vehicle access will be on Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby Cafeteria. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot is a raised island between Entergy Dr. and W. Markham Street. There are a few mature trees some of which could be saved with good design. This island fronts on Markham Street but has a driveway along the west boundary that will affect all aspects of the FILE NO.: Z-6406_ (Cont. commercial use of the land. That drive has a large Entergy power line and easement, overlaying, that restricts usage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: ' None received at this writing. The Birchwood Neighborhood Association and all abutting owners were notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. W. Markham Street is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Markham is required. 2. A 22.5' radial dedication, including the triangular piece across Entergy Court, is required at the intersection of Markham and Entergy Court. 3. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to W. Markham including sidewalk with construction of building. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two entrances off of Entergy Court and it needs to be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Entergy and Markham. 5. Close the private drive between Entergy Court and Markham and construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Entergy Court. 6. Construct 5' wide sidewalk along Entergy Court and Markham at back of right-of-way. 7. Provide an eight foot deep back -out for cars at west end of parking lot. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons. 9. Markham has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 10. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: The existing 12" water main crossing this property may be farther east than is shown. This main should be field located. The existing waterline easement is not shown. Additional easement may be required. Fire Department: Review with Water Works on hydrant need for location. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. Nearest bus route at Bowman Road and Markham. Turns south to Wal-Mart. PA FILE NO.: Z-6406 Cont. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers technically meet with the ordinance requirements. However, if this property were to have a typical "C-4" zoning for outdoor display no merchandise would be allowed to be displayed within the front 20 feet of the property. Instead, that area would be reserved for grass and shrubs. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: This site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends commercial use. The commercial use is consistent with the Plan. Note this is a "C-4", Open Display, use which was not the intended use for this area. Three other PD -C "C-4" uses have been reviewed and approved, they were commercial and a PZD. Staff has some concern about continuing this practice. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the PD -C in its current form and suggest a new design approach that will address the need to maintain more open space while reducing conflict with the west drive. The closure and reuse of the west drive is strongly encouraged to have better vehicle display and lower impact visually. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe white was presented for the owner. Staff presented its comments and concerns about plat content and design. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee asking a number of questions about this PD -C application. The Committee observed that plat and PD -C issues are closely tied, with the PD -C affecting the plats final configuration. The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability and parking arrangement. After closing comment by Public works staff, the Committee forwarded the matter to the full Commission for resolution in conjunction with the plat. 3 ILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for pui-poses of presenting the staff recommendation. Wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. Wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be 4 FILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont.) removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The. discussion then continued at length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exists. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public works, had comments to offer. Scherer's comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated 5 FILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont. driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right -of' -way for this commercial street. He stated.that, although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would affect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public Works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For the next several.comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works, recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a lesser amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the A FILE NO.: Z-6406(Cont.) existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy's question "is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet." The response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn. would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive to its current constructed width along the west boundary and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized for purposes of offering a motion on item #8, the PD -C application. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion for approval of the site plan as modified in conformance with the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 7 FILE NO.: Z-640 NAME: Parkway Motors PD -C Short -Form LOCATION: 12200 Block of West Markham Street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Ron Tabor Joe White, Jr. Flake, Tabor, Turner & Kelly White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 0.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: C-3 ALLOWED USES: (being rezoned to PD -C) PROPOSED USE• VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: FT. NEW STREET: None Auto Dealership (Mazda) No other use indicated. Auto Sales This tract is a remnant from the various actions that created the Rock Creek Parkway and later what is now Chenal Parkway. When Markham Street was realigned to the north, this triangle was created. Most of the time since annexation this lot has been zoned C-3. A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: To create a commercial lot with one building and twenty-nine (29) parking spaces. The intended use is auto sales allied with the new Mazda dealer being developed across Markham Street. There will be no access from W. Markham Street. Vehicle access will be on Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby Cafeteria. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot is a raised island between Entergy Dr. and W. Markham Street. There are a few mature trees some of which could be saved with good design. This island fronts on Markham Street but has a driveway along the west boundary that will affect all aspects of the FILE NO.: Z-6406 Cont. commercial use of the land. That drive has a large Entergy power line and easement, overlaying, that restricts usage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: ':' None received at this writing. The Birchwood Neighborhood Association and all abutting owners were notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. W. Markham Street is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Markham is required. 2. A 22.5' radial dedication, including the triangular piece across Entergy Court, is required at the intersection of Markham and Entergy Court. 3. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to W. Markham including sidewalk with construction of building. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two entrances off of Entergy Court and it needs to be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Entergy and Markham. 5. Close the private drive between Entergy Court and Markham and construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Entergy Court. 6. Construct 5' wide sidewalk along Entergy Court and Markham at back of right-of-way. 7. Provide an eight foot deep back -out for cars at west end of parking lot. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons. 9. Markham has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 10. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: The existing 12" water main crossing this property may be farther east than is shown. This main should be field located. The existing waterline easement is not shown. Additional easement may be required. Fire Department: Review with Water Works on hydrant need for location. County Planninq: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. Nearest bus route at Bowman Road and Markham. Turns south to Wal-Mart. 2 FILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont.)' F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers technically meet with the ordinance requirements. However, if this property were to have a typical "C-4" zoning for outdoor display no merchandise would be allowed to be displayed within the front 20 feet of the property. Instead, that area would be reserved for grass and shrubs. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• This site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends commercial use. The commercial use is consistent with the Plan. Note this is a "C-4", Open Display, use which was not the intended use for this area. Three other PD -C "C-4" uses have been reviewed and approved, they were commercial and a PZD. Staff has some concern about continuing this practice. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the PD -c in its current form and suggest a new design approach that will address the need to maintain more open space while reducing conflict with the west drive. The closure and reuse of the west drive is strongly encouraged to have better vehicle display and lower impact visually. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was presented for the owner. Staff presented its comments and concerns about plat content and design. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee asking a number of questions about this PD -C application. The Committee observed that plat and PD -C issues are closely tied, with the PD -C affecting the plats final configuration. The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability and parking arrangement. After closing comment by Public Works staff, the Committee forwarded the matter to the full Commission for resolution in conjunction with the plat. 3 NO.: Z-6406 (Cont.)' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for pur=poses of presenting the staff recommendation. wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. Wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be 4 FILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont.) ' removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The - discussion then continued at length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exists. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public Works, had comments to offer. Scherer's comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated 5 FILE NO.: Z-6406 (Cont. driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right-of4'kay for this commercial street. He stated that, although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would affect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public Works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For the next several comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works, recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a lesser amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the 6 FILE NO.: 2-6406 (Cont. existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy's question "is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet." The response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive to its current constructed width along the west boundary and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized for purposes of offering a motion on item #8, the PD -C application. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion for approval of the site plan as modified in conformance with the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 7 Octobbr 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6406 NAME: Parkway Motors PD -C Short -Form LOCATION: 12200 Block of West Markham Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Ron Tabor Joe White, Jr. Flake, Tabor, Turner & Kelly White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 0.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: C-3 ALLOWED USES: (being rezoned to PD -C) PROPOSED USE: VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: Auto Dealership (Mazda) No other use indicated. Auto Sales This tract is a remnant from the various actions that created the Rock Creek Parkway and later what is now Chenal Parkway. When Markham Street was realigned to the north, this triangle was created. Most of the time since annexation this lot has been zoned C-3. A. PROPOSALIRE4UEST: To create a commercial lot with one building and twenty-nine (29) parking spaces. The intended use is auto sales allied with the new Mazda dealer being developed across Markham Street. There will be no access from W. Markham Street. Vehicle access will be on Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby Cafeteria. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot is a raised island between Entergy Dr. and W. Markham Street. There are a few mature trees some of which could be saved with good design. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5406 This island fronts on Markham Street but has a driveway along the west boundary that will affect all aspects of the commercial use of the land. That drive has a large Entergy power line and easement, overlaying, that restricts usage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The -Birchwood Neighborhood Association and all abutting owners were notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. W. Markham Street is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Markham is required. 2. A 22.5' radial dedication, including the triangular piece across Entergy Court, is required at the intersection of Markham and Entergy Court. 3. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to W. Markham including sidewalk with construction of building. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two entrances off of Entergy Court and it needs to be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Entergy and Markham. 5. Close the private drive between Entergy Court and Markham and construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Entergy Court. 6. Construct 5' wide sidewalk along Entergy Court and Markham at back of right-of-way. 7. Provide an eight foot deep back -out for cars at west end of parking lot. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons. 9. Markham has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 10. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: The existing 12" water main crossing this property may be farther east than is shown. This main should be field located. The existing waterline easement is not shown. Additional easement may be required. Fire Department: Review with Water Works on hydrant need for location. K October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5405 County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. Nearest bus route at Bowman Road and Markham. Turns south to Wal-Mart. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers technically meet with the ordinance requirements. However, if this property were to have a typical "C-4" zoning for outdoor display no merchandise would be allowed to be displayed within the front 20 feet of the property. Instead, that area would be reserved for grass and shrubs. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• This site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends commercial use. The commercial use is consistent with the Plan. Note this is a "C-411, Open Display, use which was not the intended use for this area. Three other PD -C "C-4" uses have been reviewed and approved, they were commercial and a PZD. Staff has some concern about continuing this practice. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the PD -c in its current form and suggest a new design approach that will address the need to maintain more open space while reducing conflict with the west drive. The closure and reuse of the west drive is strongly encouraged to have better vehicle display and lower impact visually. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was presented for the owner. Staff presented its comments and concerns about plat content and design. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee asking a number of questions about this PD -C application. The Committee observed that plat and PD -C issues are closely tied, with the PD -C affecting the plats final configuration. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6406 The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability and parking arrangement. After closing comment by Public Works staff, the Committee forwarded the matter to the full Commission for resolution in conjunction with the plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff recommendation. Wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby and interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z--6406 He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site of preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The discussion then continued in length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exist. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should 6•i Octobhr 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance was dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public Works, had comments to offer. Scherer's comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or either discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right-of-way for this commercial street. He stated although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would effect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public Works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6406 The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For the next several comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works' recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a less amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy's question about is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet and the response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive to its current constructed width along the west boundary and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on 7 6ctober 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized for purposes of offering a motion on item #8, the PD -C application. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion for approval of the site plan as modified in conformance with the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8 ,Octol?er 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6406 The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability and parking arrangement. After closing comment by Public forwarded the matter to the full conjunction with the plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Works staff, the Committee Commission for resolution in (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff recommendation. Wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. Wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $ Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6406 He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The discussion then continued at length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exists. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should 6i ,October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8(colt.)_FILE NO.: Z-6406 perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public Works, had comments to offer. Scherer's comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right-of-way for this commercial street. He stated that, although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would affect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public Works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For 11 .October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: z-6406 the next several comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works' recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a lesser amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy's question "is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet." The response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive to its current constructed width along the west boundary and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 7 .October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• 8 Cont. FILE NO.! z-540. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized for purposes of offering a motion on item #8, the PD -C application. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion for approval of the site plan as modified in conformance with the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8