Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6762-B Staff AnalysisNovember 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -6762-B NAME: Lot 3, Hampton -Goff Subdivision Revised Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1219 S. Shackleford Road OWNER/APPLICANT: New Project LLC and Moses Family Trust/Charles Gray, KDA PROPOSAL: A revision to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit is requested allow development of a Credit Union branch on this 0-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of S. Shackleford Road; one block south of Kanis Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in an area of Mixed Office and Commercial uses and zoning. Use of the property as a Credit Union branch is certainly compatible with the neighborhood. The only question is whether the specifics of the site plan regarding signage and driveway locations are appropriate for the site. All owners of property located within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the John Barrow and Sandpiper Neighborhood Associations were notified of this request. As of this writing, staff has received no comments. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: The site is accessed by a driveway off of the 50 foot shared access easement that serves all three lots. The applicant is requesting an exit only driveway onto Shackleford Road. Thirty-seven on-site parking spaces are proposed. Eighteen spaces are required for a facility this November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6762-B size. Additionally, the facility will have four drive-thru lanes with stacking space for four vehicles each and an ATM lane with stacking space for three vehicles. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards. 2. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. Eliminate driveway on Shackleford. 4. Plans of all Work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6. Grading permit will be required on this development. 6. UTILITY, FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. Entergy: No Comments received. ARKLA: No Comments received. Southwestern Bell: Customer must pay for any needed relocations. Water: An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. (1.57 acres @ $150.00 per acre - $235.50) Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. County Planning: No Comments received. 2 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6762-B CATA: Project site is located near bus route #4 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. Planning Division: No Comments. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: On November 11, 1999, the Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow a three -lot development on the 0-2 zoned property at 1219-1225 S. Shackleford Road. A hotel was approved on the larger of the three lots and restaurants were approved for each of the two smaller lots that front onto Shackleford Road. The three -lot development was tied together as a single conditional use, with variances and conditions being attached to the overall development. The hotel has subsequently been constructed and is now in operation. The applicant proposes to construct a credit union branch on one of the two remaining smaller lots; Lot 3. A bank or credit union is a permitted use in 0-2 and if the applicant had submitted a site plan that conformed to the development plan approved by the Commission in 1999, staff would have dealt with the issue at staff level. There are two issues, however that prompted staff to return the item to the Commission. First, when the three -lot conditional use permit was approved in 1999, a variance was granted allowing for a single, 20 foot tall, 10 feet wide, monument style sign to serve all three lots. The ordinance maximum for ground - mounted signs in the office district is 6 feet in height and 64 square feet in area. The 200 square foot monument sign was approved subject to no additional ground -mounted signs being placed on the site. Based on that variance, the hotel received a sign permit for and erected a 20 foot tall, 105 square foot sign during the summer of this year. Additional panel space is available for the two remaining lots to place their signs. The applicant is asking to be allowed to erect a separate, 20 foot tall, 125 square foot ground -mounted sign on Lot 3 to serve only the credit union. The applicant is requesting a wall sign on the south wall, without direct street frontage. Staff is supportive of that request. Second, the previous, Planning Commission approved Plan did not have driveways directly onto S. Shackleford Road. All three lots accessed the street via the 50 foot access 3 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont. easement which intersects S Shackleford West Blvd. The exit only driveway onto S. boundary of Lot 3. FILE NO.: Z -6762-B . Shackleford in applicant is now Shackleford Road, ine with requesting -an near the north Although staff is supportive of the proposed use of the site by a credit union branch, we cannot support either of the two changes requested by the applicant. In good faith, the Commission approved the 20 foot tall, 200 square foot ground sign in lieu of 3, 6 foot tall, 64 square foot signs. The sign structure has been constructed. Allowing a second ground -mounted sign that so greatly exceeds ordinance maximums for office zoned properties is, in staff's opinion, inappropriate. Due to sight -distance concerns and the heavy volume of traffic on S. Shackleford Road, staff cannot support the addition of another driveway as proposed by the applicant. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (NOVEMBER 8, 2001) Kevin Webb, of KDA, was present representing the application. Staff noted that additional information was needed on days and hours of operation, site lighting, fencing, wall signage and dumpster location. The issue regarding the proposed ground - mounted sign was outlined by staff. Mr. Webb commented that there would be no dumpster on the site, due to security concerns. He stated a wall sign would be located on the west wall, facing Shackleford and perhaps on the south wall. Staff also requested the addition of a sound buffer wall on the east side of the drive-through lanes. Public Works Comments were presented. Staff voiced opposition to the proposed additional driveway onto Shackleford Road. Staff stated it would be more acceptable to have an additional one-way, exit only driveway onto the 50 foot easement rather 4 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6762-B than an additional curb cut on Shackleford. Mr. Webb was directed to meet with Public Works staff. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 2001) Chairman Downing recused on this item. Vice Chair Rector chaired the hearing. The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, addressed the issue of the proposed driveway onto Shackleford Road. He stated staff had been talking with a potential developer of the property immediately north of this site and had asked that developer to push his driveway to the southern part of his lot; away from the Kanis/Shackleford intersection. He stated he felt that request was reasonable since this property would not have a driveway onto Shackleford Road. Mr. Turner stated allowing this applicant to have a driveway onto Shackleford would place a driveway too close to the preferable driveway location for the lot to the north. He stated staff would support allowing the credit union to have a one-way, exit only driveway onto the 50 - foot access easement that serves the three lot, Hampton -Golf Subdivision. Vice Chair Rector asked if the applicant could have a shared driveway with the lot to the north. Mr. Turner responded that he did not think that would be feasible since the lot to the north was going to potentially be developed as a bank and a bank was not likely to agree to a shared driveway with a credit union. Vice Chair Rector noted the Commission was now down to eight members present. He offered the applicant the opportunity to defer the issue. The applicant stated he preferred to continue. The applicant, Charles Gray, stated the proposed credit union had different signage needs than the restaurant that was originally proposed for the site. He stated the driveway was needed for better traffic flow on the site. Mr. Gray stated the 5 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6762-B available space on the Hampton Inn sign was inadequate for the credit union's needs. He described other uses and signs in the area and stated he felt his requested sign was compatible with development along this portion of Shackleford Road. In response to a request from Vice Chair Rector, staff described the location of the existing sign. Jeff Hathaway, real estate agent for the buyer, described the credit union as being a less intensive use than the previously approved restaurant. He stated he felt it was a reasonable trade-off; a reduction in intensity for a larger sign. He also described the uses along this portion of Shackleford Road and stated the proposed sign would not be out of character with development in the area. Mr. Hathaway noted there was no objection from area property owners. In response to a question from Commissioner Floyd, Mr. Hathaway stated he was not involved in the original C.U.P. request. Commissioner Berry questioned why a less intensive use needed more intensive signage. Mr. Gray responded that the signage provided identity for the credit union that national brand restaurants did not need. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the proposed credit union, with its multiple drive-through lanes, was a fairly intensive use. He reminded the Commission of the efforts that had been taken to "de -commercialize" the 3 -lot development; including reducing overall signage. Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Gray if he would consider standard, office district signage for the site. Mr. Gray responded that he would prefer to have the sign approved, as requested. Jimmy Moses addressed the Commission in support of the request. He stated the was the applicant on the original C.U.P. Mr. Moses stated the proposed use was less intensive than the previously approved restaurant. Wally Allen, owner of the Hampton Inn and part owner in the group that owns the two out -lots, stated the hotel was approved with no restaurant. He stated the restaurant sites were approved as a package with the hotel and, as such, one shared sign seemed reasonable. Mr. Allen stated the hotel had erected less signage than was approved under the C.U.P. 6 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6762-B Vice Chair Rector asked Mr. Allen if he was saying the existing sign would not be expanded. Mr. Allen responded that he could not say that since there was an additional out -lot left to be developed. Commissioner Floyd asked if the Commission could expect to be looking at a request for a third sign. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, voiced concerns about the impact of changing previously approved plans and of the proliferation of signs. She stated she felt using the available space on the existing sign, combined with wall signage, should be sufficient for the credit union. Ms. Bell stated the League could support allowing the credit union to have office standard signage. Vice Chair Rector asked the applicant if it would be possible to do a shared driveway with the lot to the north. The applicant responded that a shared driveway was not possible but moving the secondary driveway to the 50' common access drive was. In response to a question from Vice Chair Rector, the applicant stated he was amending his application to include moving the secondary, one-way, exit only drive to the 50 -foot shared access easement. Commissioner Lowry asked the applicant if he had re -thought the issue of signage. Mr. Gray responded that his client wanted him to pursue the issue. He asked for 2-3 minutes so that he could call his client to confirm the client's wishes. The Commission then took a short break. After the break, Mr. Gray stated his client wanted to move forward on the request. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reminded the Commission that this was not an "either or" issue; that the applicant would not have the option of erecting office standard signage, if the request was denied since the existing C.U.P. did not allow additional ground -mounted signage at all. During the ensuing discussion, it was determined that the Commission would vote on each issue separately. 7 November 29, 2001 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6762-B A motion was made to approve an amendment to the C.U.P. to allow the one-way, exit only driveway onto the 50 -foot shared access easement. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 recusing (Downing). A motion was made to approve an amendment to the C.U.P. to allow the ground -mounted sign as requested. The motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 recusing (Downing). The applicant was instructed to use the existing sign or to appeal to the Board of Directors. 8