Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7605-C Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -7605-C NAME: Chenonceau Commercial Lots 1 and 2 Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard DEVELOPER: Orion Capital Partners 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 206 Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.19 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF C-3, General Commercial District General Commercial PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses — Variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None. requested. BACKGROUND: Preliminary plat containing eleven lots was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their May 16, 1995, Public Hearing. The proposal included a commercial and office subdivision on a 16.66 -acre tract. The site has frontages on both Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard. One interior cul-de-sac street, approximately 500 feet in length was proposed within the subdivision. Lots ranged in size from 0.8 acres to 2.14 acres, with the average lot size being 1.44 acres. The Final Plat for Lot 1 was executed on January 29, 1996. The Final Plat for Lot 2 was executed on December 19, 2003. The remaining lots have not been final platted. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. On April 22, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a site plan review to allow the construction of two buildings on this site, which was previously final platted as two lots. The lots were final platted consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to lot size and building setbacks. The approval allowed the construction of a 2,700 square foot bank building located on the corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard on Lot 1 and the construction of a retail building containing 12,000 square feet on Lot 2. The retail building was situated where it crossed the lot line requiring the applicant to seek a multiple building site plan review. The site plan included the development of 120 parking spaces to serve the development. The commercial building on Lot 2 has been constructed. The bank branch on Lot 1 has not been constructed. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a revision to the previously final platted lots and to allow the development of the site with a new drive-through restaurant. Lot 1R is proposed adjacent to Cantrell Road containing 1.45 acres. The building proposed for Lot 1R will contain 3,900 square feet of gross floor area. The lot is proposed containing 53 parking spaces. Lot 2R will be incorporated into the PCD. The building located on Lot 2R exists including the drives and parking. The building presently contains 12,000 square feet and the site contains 93 parking spaces. Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres. The development is proposed meeting the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements with the exception of the 2 -acre minimum lot size requirement or the requirement for a single building per two acres. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The commercial portion of the development has been constructed and a portion of the corner lot has been graded. The property to the east is development as an office development through a POD. Two office buildings have been constructed, one occupied and one vacant, and a branch bank has been constructed adjacent to Cantrell Road. The area to the south of this site is vacant and zoned C-3, General Commercial District. To the southeast is a single-family subdivision, Chevaux Court. Across Chenonceau Boulevard at the intersection with Cantrell Road is property zoned C-3, General Commercial District. The property immediately south of the C-3, General Commercial District zoned property is zoned 0-3, General Office District. Both properties are vacant of structures. North of the site, across Cantrell Road, is the Ranch Development. The area is developing as a mixed use development with office and commercial uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch _Neighborhood Association and the Chevaux Court Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3. Per the Master Street Plan, 3 lanes shown should be designed on Chenonceau Boulevard; 1- left, 1-thru, and 1 -right. Modifications should be made to the median to provide for this design. Please contact Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering, at 379-1816 for additional information. 4. Plans of all Work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Ener : No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A 15 -foot wide easement will be required, 7.5 feet on both sides of the existing water main adjacent to the south side of Cantrell Road. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 3 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Cont. Fire Department- Verify with Central Arkansas Water the shared private fire hydrant agreement. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow the construction of a new restaurant with a drive through window. The proposed development is proposed with a variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District to allow the creation of a lot with less than the two acre typical minimum lot size per the Overlay District. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Chenonceau Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on these streets, and these streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown along Chenonceau Boulevard. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Neighborhood. Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. 2. It appears the parking lot is also encroaching into the forty -foot (40') landscape strip along Highway 10. 3. One additional island is needed along the parking area, adjacent to Highway 10. M FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Cont.) 4. Screening of the parking areas is required along Highway 10. 5. The striped areas shown can be changed to green spaces. This allows for more permeable surface areas thus less run-off. 6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 17, 2008) Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff provided an overview of the proposed development stating the developers were seeking a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow for the development of this 3+ acre site with two buildings. Staff stated the Highway 10 Overlay typically required a minimum lot size of two acres and the development of one building per two acres. Staff requested Mr. White provide the proposed signage including building signage and ground mounted signage. Staff stated the parking along the eastern perimeter appeared to encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to development of the site. Staff also stated any plans for construction in the right of way would require approval by staff prior to beginning construction. Staff stated Chenonceau Boulevard would require widening to three lanes along the sites western perimeter. Staff stated one left, one through and one right lane would be required. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening of the parking area along Cantrell Road was required and questioned the mechanism the developer would employee to provide the required screening. Staff stated the site would require a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 5 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 17, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates signage to comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, building signage to comply with signage typically allowed in commercial zones and indicated the parking within the front yard does not encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District and is located in an area covered by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The developers are requesting a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a variation in the typical overlay standard. The variation being requested is to allow the creation of lots less than the two (2) acre typical minimum ordinance standard or to allow the construction of two (2) buildings on less than four (4) acres. Below is a listing of the Overlay requirements and the applicant's proposal related to each of the items. Highway 10 DOD Requirements: Applicant's proposal: Lot 1 R contains 1.45 acres Lot size. There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres (2) acres. Variation from the Overlay Standard. The building line is indicated in excess of Front yard. All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have 100 -feet. a one -hundred -foot building setback from the property line abutting Highway 10. Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less The building is set in excess of the 40 -foot than forty (40) feet. rear yard setback. The side yard is setback in excess of the Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than thirty (30) feet. 30 -foot side yard setback. Landscaping treatment. Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on-site trees and shrubbery into the No trees located on site. landscaping scheme and the plans shall indicate such incorporation. 1 Landscaped areas shall have water All landscaped areas will have sprinkler sprinkler systems to maintain plant systems installed. materials. X FILE NO.: Z-7605-C(Cont.) Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used on all cuts and fills. Tree species to be planted within this corridor should be consistent with other species present. The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way. The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or combined man-made/organic features as berms, brick walls and dense plantings such that vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from an elevation of forty-two (42) inches above the elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative screening methods and designs must be approved by the plans review specialist. Appeals from the staff will be directed to the planning commission. Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every twenty (20) feet and have a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter when measured twelve (12) inches from the ground at time of planting. Where a developer demonstrates that this requirement will constitute an undue hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way may consist of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances only, a half -berm shall be constructed which is a minimum of three (3) feet in height with tree plantings as required herein; provided however, that this provision may only be applied to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the highway frontage affected in the plans submitted. Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. Where such yards abut a street right-of- way, a fifteen -foot landscaped strip shall be reauired adiacent to land zoned office 7 All erosion controls of the City will be followed. Tree species planted will be consistent with outer species located in the area. The front yard is indicated with a minimum landscape area of 40 -feet exclusive of the right of way. The landscaped area will contain organic and/or man-made/organic features such as a berm to screen the vehicular use areas as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The western side yard shall have a landscape strip averaging a minimum of 25 -feet from the property line. The eastern and rear property lines are located adjacent to an access easement which typically does not require the placement of FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Cont. and residential. A seven -foot strip shall be required when lands zoned commercial. landscaped landscape strips. adjacent to Signage. Signage shall comply with the provisions of article X of Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as follows: Commercial development signage. Signage identifying the commercial development shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and one hundred (100) square feet in area. All signs that are ground - mounted shall be of a monument type design. These signs may be installed in the landscaped area of the front and side yards. Commercial building signage. Each separate commercial building will be allowed a single monument ground - mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the commercial development. The sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. Curb cuts. - Maximum, one (1) curb cut per three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut closer to an intersection than one hundred (100) feet. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance preserved in this corridor. Lighting should be directed to the parking areas and not reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods. Building sites. The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows: One (1) building every two (2) acres. The development will not utilize a commercial development sign. The lot will contain a single ground mounted monument sign with a maximum height of the six feet and 72 square feet in area. No new curb cuts are proposed with the development. Lighting shall comply with the DOD standards. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods. The site contains 3.19 acres and is proposed with two lots and a single building on each of the lots. The proposed development is not meeting this typical overlay standard. Variation from the Overlay Standard. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Co Commercial developments and multiple building sites. In the case of a commercial development or other development involving multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the above described regulations shall apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Developments of this type shall be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process which illustrates compliance with this article. Property, due to topography, size, irregular The request is to rezone the site from C-3, shapes or other constraints, such as General Commercial District to PCD to adjacent structures or features which allow the creation of lots less than the two significantly affect visibility, and thus (2) acre typical minimum lot size cannot be developed without violating the requirement. standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. The site plan indicates the placement of 15,900 square feet of building area. The proposed uses are the allowable uses per the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. The site plan indicates the placement of 145 parking spaces. There are 108 parking spaces located on the site and an additional 37 spaces will be provided with the new construction. Based on the typically minimum parking requirements for a shopping center and a restaurant use 92 parking spaces would typically be required. The site plan indicates the placement of 11.4 percent of the site covered with buildings, 34.5 percent landscaped and 54.1 percent paved. The site lighting will be consistent with lighting per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. All lighting will be directed downward and into the site not over spilling to the adjacent residential properties. The site plan indicates the dumpster service hours will be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The dumpster is located near the rear of the building and will be screened per the typical ordinance standards. Staff recommends the dumpster screening construction be of similar materials as the building. The developer has indicated the site will not have 24-hour activity. The proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per week. The site is zoned C-3, General Commercial District which would allow for the construction of a restaurant on the site. The lots were previously final platted A FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. containing the existing 3.19 acres. There is an existing strip retail center located on one of the proposed lots with the lot line dissecting the building. The request for a rezoning is to recognize the existing conditions on the site, clean up the lot configuration and allow for the construction of a new building. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site is not meeting the entirety of the Overlay requirements, the site is in staffs opinion is meeting the intent of the Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with uses as allowed in the current zoning district. Staff does not feel the variation to allow the replatting of the two (2) lots as proposed containing less than the typical two (2) acre minimum will significantly impact the development or the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends the dumpster screening be consistent with the construction materials of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 8, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated on April 28, 2008, the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the August 7, 2008, Commission meeting. Staff stated the applicant had notify the Neighborhood Associations of the deferral request providing the date and time of the future public hearing. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has met with the area neighborhood associations as indicated in the previous deferral. There are no changes proposed for the site plan. Staff continues to recommend approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2008) Mr. Tim Daters and Mr. JC Hosel were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. 10 FILE NO.: Z -7505-C (Cont. Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates addressed the Commission on the technical issues of the development. He stated the development containing 3.12 acres and was proposed as a two lot PCD. He stated 34.5 percent of the site would be landscaped. Mr. Daters stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial. He stated the site did share cross access with the property located immediately to the east. Mr. JC Hossel addressed the Commission. He stated the development was proposed as a fast food restaurant, a McDonalds. He stated the signage would be limited to a ground mounted sign. No electronic messaging was proposed. He stated the site would not operate 24 hours but would operate from 5 am to 2 am seven days per week. He stated elevations with proposed material had been provided to the Commission. He stated the site would require approval by the Chenal Design Review Committee. He stated the building construction would not be metal but some form of brick or combination of comparable material. Ms. Sandra Palmer addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was president of the Chevaux Neighborhood Association and the neighborhoods was very much opposed to the request. She stated there were 96 homes in the neighborhood with 155 residents. She stated of the residents she had a petition with 145 names in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood did not need a drive-thru restaurant next door to their quiet neighborhood. She stated there was a similar fast food restaurant located in the Wal-Mart, two miles down the road. She stated if the development did not fit the City and developers should not force the development to occur. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the volume of traffic, the trash generated from the site, the noise, light pollution and the safety of the patrons of the neighborhood and the drive-thru restaurant. She stated the sign proposed was six feet high. She stated the sign would be located on a five to ten foot embankment resulting in a fifteen foot tall sign. Ms. Palmer stated a McDonalds was not what Chenal Valley wanted marking the entrance to their neighborhood. She stated the hours of operation were a concern. She stated once the approval to allow the restaurant to operate from 5 am to 2 am was approved the owners would be back requesting an extension of the hours. She stated the existing restaurant closed at 9:00 pm. She stated the hours should match the existing uses in the area. Ms. Palmer stated light pollution was also a concern. She stated the office development located to the north of their subdivision had been raised to a height that the development was towering over their homes. She stated with the filling and the placement of light poles 20 to 25 feet high the lighting for the office development spilled onto the adjacent site and into their back yards. She stated a new commercial building was not needed. She questioned why the restaurant could not retro fit the Catfish City building for their use. 11 FILE NO.: Z -7505-C (Cont. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or to the placement of two buildings on less than four acres. Ms. Palmer stated the neighborhood did not want a fast food restaurant at the entrance to their neighborhood. Mr. Edward Oglesby addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association. He stated there were 199 homes in the neighborhood and a pole of the residents had been taken and the neighborhood was not in support of the restaurant. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a fast food restaurant on the corner. He stated the volume of traffic and the speed of traffic was a concern. He stated there were also concerns with turning movements from this site and the bank located to the north. He stated the drives aligned and traffic traveling east bound wanting to enter the bank was at odds with motorist wanting to turn onto Chenonceau or into this development. He stated the Overlay had been in place for 25 plus years. He stated little by little the City had allowed development to occur inconsistent with the Overlay standards. He stated the neighborhood was concerned with the noise and the traffic a fast food restaurant would generate. He stated the site was more appropriate for a quiet commercial uses and not a business that operated from 5 am to 2 am. He stated traffic on Chenonceau backed up at this location. He stated it was unsafe to exit onto Cantrell without waiting for the light because of the speed of the traffic and visibility issues. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or the variance from the Overlay standard. Mr. Oglesby stated the opposition was to the use. Commissioner Rector stated use was not an issue before the Commission. He stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial which by right allowed a drive-thru restaurant. Mr. Oglesby stated the lot existed with two acres. He stated the drive-thru was a concern he requested the Commission to deny the variance. He stated across Highway 10 there was an area of C-3, General Commercial zoned property. He questioned why the development did not occur there. He stated there was not a need for a fast food restaurant at this location. He stated the same restaurant was in the Wal-Mart just two miles down the road. He stated the Commission had been sold a bill of goods with the previous site plan. He stated the developers had a bank approved for the location then came back for a restaurant once the two buildings were approved. Mr. Frank Pohlkamp addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Bayonne Place property owners association. He stated the property owners association was totally against a McDonalds restaurant at this location. He stated the Commission should refuse the variance request by Orion and McDonalds to allow the development with less than the overlay standards. He stated the intersection carried a high level of traffic and the speed of the traffic was in excess of the posted 50 mph. He stated the hours of operation would be a magnet to attract late night undesirables to the area. He stated this would increase crime in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods and would impact property values. He stated the neighborhood concept of livability would be violated with trash, noise and odor as well as air pollution from vehicles idling at the drive-thru window. He stated the residents bought homes in Bayonne Place because of the peaceful atmosphere and neat appearance. He stated a restaurant with a drive-thru window would certainly i1K FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont..-)--,- compromise Cont: e - compromise the peaceful atmosphere. He stated the neighborhood did not see the need for a restaurant of this type when just down the road at the Super Center there was a McDonalds. He stated there were a number of other locations not adjacent to a residential neighborhood where sites were available for a restaurant location. Mr. Pohlkamp addressed the Commission stating he desired the Commission to consider the neighborhoods wishes and refuse the variance to the Highway 10 Overlay Plan. He read the Commission Mission statement stating to enhance the quality of life for the Citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. Mr. David Grace addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the Commission had been provided letters of opposition from the Bayonne residents. He stated the developers had filed the application in April and had not meet with the residents until last week. He stated the request included a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development. He stated Orion left the lot size as indicated which was a business decision at the time of development of the retail center located to the south. He provided the Commission with accident reports at the intersection from 2000. He stated since 2000 55 accidents had occurred. He stated a number of the accidents had occurred since 2005 after the traffic signal was installed. He stated a drive-thru in the mist of the volumes of traffic in the area was a concern. He stated safety was not included in the staff write-up. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was representing the League of Women Voters who had taken a strong stand on the Highway 10 Overlay and felt the plan should be upheld. She stated the variances typically granted met the spirit of the plan. She stated many persons had bought land and made business decision for future development based on the plan, adopted by the City, dictating how the area would develop. She stated this was a strong reason to uphold the DOD. Mr. Daters stated as a part of the development a third lane would be added to Chenonceau Boulevard. He stated this would allow a dedicated left, through and right lane. He stated the developer would also incorporate improvements to the traffic signal. He stated there was not a break in Chenonceau, which would allow left turns into the site thus lessening the conflicting traffic movements. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning the traffic concerns and issues raised. Staff stated the drives were located in these areas because they aligned and the meet the spacing criteria of the ordinance. Staff stated the streets would be constructed to Master Street Plan standard and this did include the addition of a left turn lane on Chenonceau. The Commission questioned if the use would affect traffic patterns in the area. Staff stated they did not feel the use would affect the traffic patterns in the area. 13 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. Staff stated one comment had been made concerning a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated this was incorrect and the variance was from the Highway 10 Overlay standards. Staff stated the lot development standards were established by the zoning through the Overlay. Staff stated the overlay required the placement of one building per two acres or a minimum lot size of two acres. Staff stated the Overlay established development standards. Staff stated the Commission was charged with determining if the development met the purpose and intent of the Overlay District. Staff stated use was an issue the Commission could consider since the request was a rezoning. Staff stated if approved the zoning of the property would be PCD and not the present C-3, General Commercial District. There was a general discussion concerning development standards and how the site could develop. The Commission noted the remaining three corners were zoned C-3 as was the property to the south of this site which could develop with a drive-thru restaurant by -right with the issuance of a building permit and no review by the City Planning Commission or Board of Directors. The Commission noted two weeks ago a review of the Highway 10 Overlay was undertaken to determine the number of variance request being considered in this area. It was stated Highway 10 was at the forefront of everyone's mind. The Commission stated the Planned Development process was the vehicle to allow development of property, which did not fully comply with the Overlay standard regardless of the issue. The Commission noted the site was located at a commercial node. Also noting all other corners were zoned appropriately to allow this same type use. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. 14 August 7, 2008 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C NAME: Chenonceau Commercial Lots 1 and 2 Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard DEVELOPER: Orion Capital Partners 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 206 Little Rock, AR 72212 FNC;INFFR- White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.19 acres CURREN-f ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF C-3, General Commercial District General Commercial PCD PROPOSED USE: C-3, General Commercial District uses — Variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Preliminary plat containing eleven lots was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their May 16, 1995, Public Hearing. The proposal included a commercial and office subdivision on a 16.66 -acre tract. The site has frontages on both Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard. One interior cul-de-sac street, approximately 500 feet in length was proposed within the subdivision. Lots ranged in size from 0.8 acres to 2.14 acres, with the average lot size being 1.44 acres. The Final Plat for Lot 1 was executed on January 29, 1996. The Final Plat for Lot 2 was executed on December 19, 2003. The remaining lots have not been final platted. August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C On April 22, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a site plan review to allow the construction of two buildings on this site, which was previously final platted as two lots. The lots were final platted consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to lot size and building setbacks. The approval allowed the construction of a 2,700 square foot bank building located on the corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard on Lot 1 and the construction of a retail building containing 12,000 square feet on Lot 2. The retail building was situated where it crossed the lot line requiring the applicant to seek a multiple building site plan review. The site plan included the development of 120 parking spaces to serve the development. The commercial building on Lot 2 has been constructed. The bank branch on Lot 1 has not been constructed. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a revision to the previously final platted lots and to allow the development of the site with a new drive-through restaurant. Lot 1R is proposed adjacent to Cantrell Road containing 1.45 acres. The building proposed for Lot 1R will contain 3,900 square feet of gross floor area. The lot is proposed containing 53 parking spaces. Lot 2R will be incorporated into the PCD. The building located on Lot 2R exists including the drives and parking. The building presently contains 12,000 square feet and the site contains 93 parking spaces. Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres. The development is proposed meeting the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements with the exception of the 2 -acre minimum lot size requirement or the requirement for a single building per two acres. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The commercial portion of the development has been constructed and a portion of the corner lot has been graded. The property to the east is development as an office development through a POD. Two office buildings have been constructed, one occupied and one vacant, and a branch bank has been constructed adjacent to Cantrell Road. The area to the south of this site is vacant and zoned C-3, General Commercial District. To the southeast is a single-family subdivision, Chevaux Court. Across Chenonceau Boulevard at the intersection with Cantrell Road is property zoned C-3, General Commercial District. The property immediately south of the C-3, General Commercial District zoned property is zoned 0-3, General Office District. Both properties are vacant of structures. North of the site, across Cantrell Road, is the Ranch Development. The area is developing as a mixed use development with office and commercial uses. 2 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: FILE NO.: Z -7605-C As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and the Chevaux Court Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3. Per the Master Street Plan, 3 lanes shown should be designed on Chenonceau Boulevard; 1- left, 1-thru, and 1 -right. Modifications should be made to the median to provide for this design. Please contact Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering, at 379-1816 for additional information. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Ener : No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A 15 -foot wide easement will be required, 7.5 feet on both sides of the existing water main adjacent to the south side of Cantrell Road. 3 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). Fire Department: Verify with Central Arkansas Water the shared private fire hydrant agreement. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow the construction of a new restaurant with a drive through window. The proposed development is proposed with a variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District to allow the creation of a lot with less than the two acre typical minimum lot size per the Overlay District. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Chenonceau Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on these streets, and these streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown along Chenonceau Boulevard. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Action Plan. 0 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. Landscape: FILE NO.: Z -7605-C 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. 2. It appears the parking lot is also encroaching into the forty -foot (40') landscape strip along Highway 10. 3. One additional island is needed along the parking area, adjacent to Highway 10. 4. Screening of the parking areas is required along Highway 10. 5. The striped areas shown can be changed to green spaces. This allows for more permeable surface areas thus less run-off. 6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 17, 2008) Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff provided an overview of the proposed development stating the developers were seeking a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow for the development of this 3+ acre site with two buildings. Staff stated the Highway 10 Overlay typically required a minimum lot size of two acres and the development of one building per two acres. Staff requested Mr. White provide the proposed signage including building signage and ground mounted signage. Staff stated the parking along the eastern perimeter appeared to encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to development of the site. Staff also stated any plans for construction in the right of way would require approval by staff prior to beginning construction. Staff stated Chenonceau Boulevard would require widening to three lanes along the sites western perimeter. Staff stated one left, one through and one right lane would be required. 5 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening of the parking area along Cantrell Road was required and questioned the mechanism the developer would employee to provide the required screening. Staff stated the site would require a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 17, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates signage to comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, building signage to comply with signage typically allowed in commercial zones and indicated the parking within the front yard does not encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District and is located in an area covered by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The developers are requesting a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a variation in the typical overlay standard. The variation being requested is to allow the creation of lots less than the two (2) acre typical minimum ordinance standard or to allow the construction of two (2) buildings on less than four (4) acres. Below is a listing of the Overlay requirements and the applicant's proposal related to each of the items. Highway 10 DOD Requirements: Lot size. There shall be a minimum development tract size of not less than two (2) acres. Front yard. All principal and accessory buildings or structures are required to have a one -hundred -foot building setback from the property line abutting Highway 10. Applicant's proposal: Lot 1 R contains 1.45 acres Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres Variation from the Overlay Standard. The building line is indicated in excess of 100 -feet. fRear yard. Rear yard shall not be less The building is set in excess of the 40 -foot than forty (40) feet. rear yard setback. Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than The side yard is setback in excess of the thirty (30) feet. f 30 -foot side yard setback. A August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Landscaping treatment. Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on-site trees and shrubbery into the landscaping scheme and the plans shall indicate such incorporation. Landscaped areas shall have water sprinkler systems to maintain plant materials. Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used on all cuts and fills. Tree species to be planted within this corridor should be consistent with other species present. The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way. The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or combined man-made/organic features as berms, brick walls and dense plantings such that vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from an elevation of forty-two (42) inches above the elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative screening methods and designs must be approved by the plans review specialist. Appeals from the staff will be directed to the planning commission. Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every twenty (20) feet and have a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter when measured twelve (12) inches from the ground at time of planting. Where a developer demonstrates that this requirement will constitute an undue hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way may consist of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances only. a half -berm shall be constructed 7 No trees located on site. All landscaped areas will systems installed. I have sprinkler All erosion controls of the City will be followed. Tree species planted will be consistent with outer species located in the area. _ 1 The front yard is indicated with a minimum landscape area of 40 -feet exclusive of the right of way. The landscaped area will contain organic and/or man-made/organic- features such as a berm to screen the vehicular use areas as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. which is a minimum of three (3) feet in height with tree plantings as required herein; provided however, that this provision may only be applied to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the highway frontage affected in the plans submitted. Rear and side yards shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. Where such yards abut a street right-of- way, a fifteen -foot landscaped strip shall be required adjacent to land zoned office and residential. A seven -foot landscaped strip shall be required when adjacent to lands zoned commercial. Signage. Signage shall comply with the provisions of article X of Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as follows: Commercial development signage. Signage identifying the commercial development shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and one hundred (100) square feet in area. All signs that are ground - mounted shall be of a monument type design. These signs may be installed in the landscaped area of the front and side yards. Commercial building signage. Each separate commercial building will be allowed a single monument ground - mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the commercial development. The sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut FILE NO.: Z -7605-C The western side yard shall have a landscape strip averaging a minimum of 25 -feet from the property line. The eastern and rear property lines are located adjacent to an access easement which typically does not require the placement of landscape strips. The development will not utilize a commercial development sign. The lot will contain a single ground mounted monument sign with a maximum height of the six feet and 72 square feet in area. 1w I.— .,wrb cut: development. August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. closer to an intersection than one hundred (100) feet. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance preserved in this corridor. Lighting should be directed to the parking areas and not reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods. Building sites. The maximum number of buildings per commercial development shall be measured both by minimum tract size and minimum frontage as follows: One (1) building every two (2) acres. Commercial developments and multiple building sites. In the case of a commercial development or other development involving multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the above described regulations shall apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Developments of this type shall be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process which illustrates compliance with this article. Property, due to topography, size, irregular shapes or other constraints, such as adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility, and thus cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. 01 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Lighting shall comply with the DOD standards. Lighting will be directed to the parking areas and not reflect into the adjacent neighborhoods. The site contains 3.19 acres and is proposed with two lots and a single building on each of the lots. The proposed development is not meeting this typical overlay standard. Variation from the Overlav Standard. The request is to rezone the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow the creation of lots less than the two (2) acre typical minimum lot size requirement. August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C The site plan indicates the placement of 15,900 square feet of building area. The proposed uses are the allowable uses per the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. The site plan indicates the placement of 145 parking spaces. There are 108 parking spaces located on the site and an additional 37 spaces will be provided with the new construction. Based on the typically minimum parking requirements for a shopping center and a restaurant use 92 parking spaces would typically be required. The site plan indicates the placement of 11.4 percent of the site covered with buildings, 34.5 percent landscaped and 54.1 percent paved. The site lighting will be consistent with lighting per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. All lighting will be directed downward and into the site not over spilling to the adjacent residential properties. The site plan indicates the dumpster service hours will be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The dumpster is located near the rear of the building and will be screened per the typical ordinance standards. Staff recommends the dumpster screening construction be of similar materials as the building. The developer has indicated the site will not have 24-hour activity. The proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per week. The site is zoned C-3, General Commercial District which would allow for the construction of a restaurant on the site. The lots were previously final platted containing the existing 3.19 acres. There is an existing strip retail center located on one of the proposed lots with the lot line dissecting the building. The request for a rezoning is to recognize the existing conditions on the site, clean up the lot configuration and allow for the construction of a new building. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site is not meeting the entirety of the Overlay requirements, the site is in staff's opinion is meeting the intent of the Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with uses as allowed in the current zoning district. Staff does not feel the variation to allow the replatting of the two (2) lots as proposed containing less than the typical two (2) acre minimum will significantly impact the development or the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends the dumpster screening be consistent with the construction materials of the building. 10 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 8, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated on April 28, 2008, the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the August 7, 2008, Commission meeting. Staff stated the applicant had notify the Neighborhood Associations of the deferral request providing the date and time of the future public hearing. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDA The applicant has met with the area neighborhood associations as indicated in the previous deferral. There are no changes proposed for the site plan. Staff continues to recommend approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2008) Mr. Tim Daters and Mr. JC Hosel were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates addressed the Commission on the technical issues of the development. He stated the development containing 3.12 acres and was proposed as a two lot PCD. He stated 34.5 percent of the site would be landscaped. Mr. Daters stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial. He stated the site did share cross access with the property located immediately to the east. Mr. JC Hossel addressed the Commission. He stated the development was proposed as a fast food restaurant, a McDonalds. He stated the signage would be limited to a ground mounted sign. No electronic messaging was proposed. He stated the site would not operate 24 hours but would operate from 5 am to 2 am seven days per week. He stated elevations with proposed material had been provided to the Commission. He stated the site would require approval by the Chenal Design Review Committee. He stated the building construction would not be metal but some form of brick or combination of comparable material. 11 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION MAKIN•-wforeM FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Ms. Sandra Palmer addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was president of the Chevaux Neighborhood Association and the neighborhoods was very much opposed to the request. She stated there were 96 homes in the neighborhood with 155 residents. She stated of the residents she had a petition with 145 names in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood did not need a drive-thru restaurant next door to their quiet neighborhood. She stated there was a similar fast food restaurant located in the Wal-Mart, two miles down the road. She stated if the development did not fit the City and developers should not force the development to occur. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the volume of traffic, the trash generated from the site, the noise, light pollution and the safety of the patrons of the neighborhood and the drive-thru restaurant. She stated the sign proposed was six feet high. She stated the sign would be located on a five to ten foot embankment resulting in a fifteen foot tall sign. Ms. Palmer stated a McDonalds was not what Chenal Valley wanted marking the entrance to their neighborhood. She stated the hours of operation were a concern. She stated once the approval to allow the restaurant to operate from 5 am to 2 am was approved the owners would be back requesting an extension of the hours. She stated the existing restaurant closed at 9:00 pm. She stated the hours should match the existing uses in the area. Ms. Palmer stated light pollution was also a concern. She stated the office development located to the north of their subdivision had been raised to a height that the development was towering over their homes. She stated with the filling and the placement of light poles 20 to 25 feet high the lighting for the office development spilled onto the adjacent site and into their back yards. She stated a new commercial building was not needed. She questioned why the restaurant could not retro fit the Catfish City building for their use. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or to the placement of two buildings on less than four acres. Ms. Palmer stated the neighborhood did not want a fast food restaurant at the entrance to their neighborhood. Mr. Edward Oglesby addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association. He stated there were 199 homes in the neighborhood and a pole of the residents had been taken and the neighborhood was not in support of the restaurant. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a fast food restaurant on the corner. He stated the volume of traffic and the speed of traffic was a concern. He stated there were also concerns with turning movements from this site and the bank located to the north. He stated the drives 12 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C aligned and traffic traveling east bound wanting to enter the bank was at odds with motorist wanting to turn onto Chenonceau or into this development. He stated the Overlay had been in place for 25 plus years. He stated little by little the City had allowed development to occur inconsistent with the Overlay standards. He stated the neighborhood was concerned with the noise and the traffic a fast food restaurant would generate. He stated the site was more appropriate for a quiet commercial uses and not a business that operated from 5 am to 2 am. He stated traffic on Chenonceau backed up at this location. He stated it was unsafe to exit onto Cantrell without waiting for the light because of the speed of the traffic and visibility issues. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or the variance from the Overlay standard. Mr. Oglesby stated the opposition was to the use. Commissioner Rector stated use was not an issue before the Commission. He stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial which by right allowed a drive-thru restaurant. Mr. Oglesby stated the lot existed with two acres. He stated the drive-thru was a concern he requested the Commission to deny the variance. He stated across Highway 10 there was an area of C-3, General Commercial zoned property. He questioned why the development did not occur there. He stated there was not a need for a fast food restaurant at this location. He stated the same restaurant was in the Wal-Mart just two miles down the road. He stated the Commission had been sold a bill of goods with the previous site plan. He stated the developers had a bank approved for the location then came back for a restaurant once the two buildings were approved. Mr. Frank Pohlkamp addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Bayonne Place property owners association. He stated the property owners association was totally against a McDonalds restaurant at this location. He stated the Commission should refuse the variance request by Orion and McDonalds to allow the development with less than the overlay standards. He stated the intersection carried a high level of traffic and the speed of the traffic was in excess of the posted 50 mph. He stated the hours of operation would be a magnet to attract late night undesirables to the area. He stated this would increase crime in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods and would impact property values. He stated the neighborhood concept of livability would be violated with trash, noise and odor as well as air pollution from vehicles idling at the drive-thru window. He stated the residents bought homes in Bayonne Place because of the peaceful atmosphere and neat appearance. He stated a restaurant with a drive-thru window would certainly compromise the peaceful atmosphere. He stated the neighborhood did not see the need for a restaurant of this type when just down the road at the Super Center there was a McDonalds. He stated there were a number of other locations not adjacent to a residential neighborhood where sites were available for a restaurant location. Mr. Pohlkamp addressed the Commission stating he desired the Commission to 13 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION YV ►�fi0,L9>WWW(4i.Tii# FILE NO.: Z -7605-C consider the neighborhoods wishes and refuse the variance to the Highway 10 Overlay Plan. He read the Commission Mission statement stating to enhance the quality of life for the Citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. Mr. David Grace addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the Commission had been provided letters of opposition from the Bayonne residents. He stated the developers had filed the application in April and had not meet with the residents until last week. He stated the request included a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development. He stated Orion left the lot size as indicated which was a business decision at the time of development of the retail center located to the south. He provided the Commission with accident reports at the intersection from 2000. He stated since 2000 55 accidents had occurred. He stated a number of the accidents had occurred since 2005 after the traffic signal was installed. He stated a drive-thru in the mist of the volumes of traffic in the area was a concern. He stated safety was not included in the staff write-up. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was representing the League of Women Voters who had taken a strong stand on the Highway 10 Overlay and felt the plan should be upheld. She stated the variances typically granted met the spirit of the plan. She stated many persons- had bought land and made business decision for future development based on the plan, adopted by the City, dictating how the area would develop. She stated this was a strong reason to uphold the DOD. Mr. Daters stated as a part of the development a third lane would be added to Chenonceau Boulevard. He stated this would allow a dedicated left, through and right lane. He stated the developer would also incorporate improvements to the traffic signal. He stated there was not a break in Chenonceau, which would allow left turns into the site thus lessening the conflicting traffic movements. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning the traffic concerns and issues raised. Staff stated the drives were located in these areas because they aligned and the meet the spacing criteria of the ordinance. Staff stated the streets would be constructed to Master Street Plan standard and this did include the addition of a left turn lane on Chenonceau. The Commission questioned if the use would affect traffic patterns in the area. Staff stated they did not feel the use would affect the traffic patterns in the area. Staff stated one comment had been made concerning a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated this was incorrect and the variance was from the Highway 10 Overlay standards. Staff stated the lot development standards were established by the 14 August 7, 2008 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -7605-C zoning through the Overlay. Staff stated the overlay required the placement of one building per two acres or a minimum lot size of two acres. Staff stated the Overlay established development standards. Staff stated the Commission was charged with determining if the development met the purpose and intent of the Overlay District. Staff stated use was an issue the Commission could consider since the request was a rezoning. Staff stated if approved the zoning of the property would be PCD and not the present C-3, General Commercial District. There was a general discussion concerning development standards and how the site could develop. The Commission noted the remaining three corners were zoned C-3 as was the property to the south of this site which could develop with a drive-thru restaurant by -right with the issuance of a building permit and no review by the City Planning Commission or Board of Directors. The Commission noted two weeks ago a review of the Highway 10 Overlay was undertaken to determine the number of variance request being considered in this area. It was stated Highway 10 was at the forefront of everyone's mind. The Commission stated the Planned Development process was the vehicle to allow development of property, which did not fully comply with the Overlay standard regardless of the issue. The Commission noted the site was located at a commercial node. Also noting all other corners were zoned appropriately to allow this same type use. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. 15 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C NAME: Chenonceau Commercial Lots 1 and 2 Short -form PCD LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard DEVELOPER: Orion Capital Partners 2200 North Rodney Parham Road, Suite 206 Little Rock, AR 72212 ENGINEER: White Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 3.19 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING ROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF C-3, General Commercial District General Commercial I C-3, General Commercial District uses — Variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Preliminary plat containing eleven lots was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their May 16, 1995, Public Hearing. The proposal included a commercial and office subdivision on a 16.66 -acre tract. The site has frontages on both Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard. One interior cul-de-sac street, approximately 500 feet in length was proposed within the subdivision. Lots ranged in size from 0.8 acres to 2.14 acres, with the average lot size being 1.44 acres. The Final Plat for Lot 1 was executed on January 29, 1996. The Final Plat for Lot 2 was executed on December 19, 2003. The remaining lots have not been final platted. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. On April 22, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a site plan review to allow the construction of two buildings on this site, which was previously final platted as two lots. The lots were final platted consistent with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District with regard to lot size and building setbacks. The approval allowed the construction of a 2,700 square foot bank building located on the corner of Cantrell Road and Chenonceau Boulevard on Lot 1 and the construction of a retail building containing 12,000 square feet on Lot 2. The retail building was situated where it crossed the lot line requiring the applicant to seek a multiple building site plan review. The site plan included the development of 120 parking spaces to serve the development. The commercial building on Lot 2 has been constructed. The bank branch on Lot 1 has not been constructed. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a revision to the previously final platted lots and to allow the development of the site with a new drive-through restaurant. Lot 1R is proposed adjacent to Cantrell Road containing 1.45 acres. The building proposed for Lot 1R will contain 3,900 square feet of gross floor area. The lot is proposed containing 53 parking spaces. Lot 2R will be incorporated into the PCD. The building located on Lot 2R exists including the drives and parking. The building presently contains 12,000 square feet and the site contains 93 parking spaces. Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres. The development is proposed meeting the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements with the exception of the 2 -acre minimum lot size requirement or the requirement for a single building per two acres. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The commercial portion of the development has been constructed and a portion of the corner lot has been graded. The property to the east is development as an office development through a POD. Two office buildings have been constructed, one occupied and one vacant, and a branch bank has been constructed adjacent to Cantreil Road. The area to the south of this site is vacant and zoned C-3, General Commercial District. To the southeast is a single-family subdivision, Chevaux Court. Across Chenonceau Boulevard at the intersection with Cantrell Road is property zoned C-3, General Commercial District. The property immediately south of the C-3, General Commercial District zoned property is zoned 0-3, General Office District. Both properties are vacant of structures. North of the site, across Cantrell Road, is the Ranch Development. The area is developing as a mixed use development with office and commercial uses. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area property owners. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all 2 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C Cont-. residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association, the Bayonne Place Property Owners Association, the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association and the Chevaux Court Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIO 1. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 3. Per the Master Street Plan, 3 lanes shown should be designed on Chenonceau Boulevard; 1- left, 1-thru, and 1 -right. Modifications should be made to the median to provide for this design. Please contact Bill Henry, Traffic Engineering, at 379-1816 for additional information. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 5. Coordinate design of traffic signal upgrade with proposed street improvements. Plans to be forwarded to Traffic Engineering for approval. 6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available to this property. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A 15 -foot wide easement will be required, 7.5 feet on both sides of the existing water main adjacent to the south side of Cantrell Road. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. Additional fire hydrant(s) may be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 3 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. Fire Department: Verify with Central Arkansas Water the shared private fire hydrant agreement. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 377-1225. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. 1SSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow the construction of a new restaurant with a drive through window. The proposed development is proposed with a variation to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District to allow the creation of a lot with less than the two acre typical minimum lot size per the Overlay District. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Cantrell Road is shown as a Principal Arterial. The primary function of a Principal Arterial is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generators or activity centers within urbanized areas. Chenonceau Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on these streets, and these streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown along Chenonceau Boulevard. A Class III bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required. Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a City of Little Rock Neighborhood Action Plan. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. 2. It appears the parking lot is also encroaching into the forty -foot (40') landscape strip along Highway 10. 3. One additional island is needed along the parking area, adjacent to Highway 10. M FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. 4. Screening of the parking areas is required along Highway 10. 5. The striped areas shown can be changed to green spaces. This allows for more permeable surface areas thus less run-off. 6. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 17, 2008) Mr. Joe White of White Daters and Associates was present representing the request. Staff provided an overview of the proposed development stating the developers were seeking a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow for the development of this 3+ acre site with two buildings. Staff stated the Highway 10 Overlay typically required a minimum lot size of two acres and the development of one building per two acres. Staff requested Mr. White provide the proposed signage including building signage and ground mounted signage. Staff stated the parking along the eastern perimeter appeared to encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to development of the site. Staff also stated any plans for construction in the right of way would require approval by staff prior to beginning construction. Staff stated Chenonceau Boulevard would require widening to three lanes along the sites western perimeter. Staff stated one left, one through and one right lane would be required. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated screening of the parking area along Cantrell Road was required and questioned the mechanism the developer would employee to provide the required screening. Staff stated the site would require a landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 5 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the April 17, 2008, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised site plan indicates signage to comply with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, building signage to comply with signage typically allowed in commercial zones and indicated the parking within the front yard does not encroach into the 40 -foot landscape strip. The site is currently zoned C-3, General Commercial District and is located in an area covered by the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. The developers are requesting a rezoning of the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow a variation in the typical overlay standard. The variation being requested is to allow the creation of lots less than the two (2) acre typical minimum ordinance standard or to allow the construction of two (2) buildings on less than four (4) acres. Below is a listing of the Overlay requirements and the applicant's proposal related to each of the items. Highway 10 DOD Requirements: Applicant's proposal: Lot size. There shall be a minimum Lot 1 R contains 1.45 acres development tract size of not less than two Lot 2R contains 1.74 acres (2) acres. Variation from the Overlay Standard. Front yard. All principal and accessory The building line is indicated in excess of buildings or structures are required to have 100 -feet. a one -hundred -foot building setback from the property line abutting Highway 10. Rear yard. Rear yard shall not be less The building is set in excess of the 40 -foot than forty (40) feet. rear yard setback. Side yard. Side yard shall not be less than The side yard is setback in excess of the thirty (30) feet. 30 -foot side yard setback. Landscaping treatment. Landscaped areas shall attempt to incorporate existing on-site trees and shrubbery into the No trees located on site, landscaping scheme and the plans shall indicate such incorporation. Landscaped areas shall have water All landscaped areas will have sprinkler sprinkler systems to maintain plant systems installed. materials. Cej FILE -NO.: Z -7605-C Cont. Erosion retardant vegetation shall be used 1 All erosion controls of the City will be on all cuts and fills. � followed. 1 Tree species to be planted within this Tree species planted will be consistent corridor should be consistent with other with outer species located in the area. species present. The Highway 10 frontage (front yard) shall consist of a minimum of forty (40) feet of landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way. The landscaped area shall contain organic and/or combined man-made/organic features as berms, brick walls and dense plantings such that vehicular use areas are screened when viewed from an elevation of forty-two (42) inches above the elevation of the adjacent street. Alternative screening methods and designs must be approved by the plans review specialist. Appeals from the staff will be directed to the planning commission. Within the landscaped area trees shall be planted or be existing at least every twenty (20) feet and have a minimum of two (2) inches in diameter when measured twelve (12) inches from the ground at time of planting. Where a developer demonstrates that this requirement will constitute an undue hardship, a landscaped area exclusive of right-of-way may consist of a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. In those instances only, a half -berm shall be constructed which is a minimum of three (3) feet in height with tree plantings as required herein; provided however, that this provision may only be applied to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the highway frontage affected in the plans submitted. The front yard is indicated with a minimum landscape area of 40 -feet exclusive of the right of way. The landscaped area will contain organic and/or man-made/organic features such as a berm to screen the vehicular use areas as typically required per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Rear and side yards shall have a The western side yard shall have a landscaped buffer averaging a minimum of I landscape strip averaging a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. 25 -feet from the property line. The eastern Where such yards abut a street right -of- and rear property lines are located way, a fifteen -foot landscaped strip shall adjacent to an access easement which be required adjacent to land zoned office typically_ does not require the placement of 7 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. and residential. A seven -foot landscaped landscape strips. strip shall be required when adjacent to lands zoned commercial. Signage. Signage shall comply with the provisions of article X of Chapter 36 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances, except as follows: Commercial development signage. The development will not utilize a Signage identifying the commercial commercial development sign. The lot will development shall not exceed ten (10) feet contain a single ground mounted in height and one hundred (100) square monument sign with a maximum height of feet in area. All signs that are ground- the six feet and 72 square feet in area. mounted shall be of a monument type design. These signs may be installed in the landscaped area of the front and side yards. Commercial building signage. Each separate commercial building will be allowed a single monument ground - mounted sign located on the building site or in the landscaped front yard of the commercial development. The sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet in height and seventy-two (72) square feet in area. Curb cuts. Maximum, one (1) curb cut per No new curb cuts are proposed with the three hundred (300) feet and no curb cut development. closer to an intersection than one hundred (100) feet. Lighting. Parking lot lighting shall be Lighting shall comply with the DOD designed and located in such manner so standards. Lighting will be directed to_ the as not to disturb the scenic appearance parking areas and not reflect into the preserved in this corridor. Lighting should adjacent neighborhoods. be directed to the parking areas and not reflected into the adjacent neighborhoods. Building sites. The maximum number of The site contains 3.19 acres and is buildings per commercial development proposed with two lots and a single shall be measured both by minimum tract building on each of the lots. The proposed size and minimum frontage as follows: development is not meeting this typical One (1) building every two (2) acres. overlay standard. Variation from the Overlay Standard. FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. Commercial developments and multiple building sites. In the case of a commercial development or other development involving multiple building sites, whether on one (1) or more platted lots, the above described regulations shall apply to the development as an entire tract rather than to each platted lot. Developments of this type shall be reviewed by the City through a site plan review process which illustrates compliance with this article. Property, due to topography, size, irregular shapes or other constraints, such as adjacent structures or features which significantly affect visibility, and thus cannot be developed without violating the standards of this article shall be reviewed through the planned unit development (PUD) section of the zoning ordinance, with the intent to devise a workable development plan which is consistent with the purpose and intent of the overlay standards. The request is to rezone the site from C-3, General Commercial District to PCD to allow the creation of lots less than the two (2) acre typical minimum lot size requirement. The site plan indicates the placement of 15,900 square feet of building area. The proposed uses are the allowable uses per the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. The site plan indicates the placement of 145 parking spaces. There are 108 parking spaces located on the site and an additional 37 spaces will be provided with the new construction. Based on the typically minimum parking requirements for a shopping center and a restaurant use 92 parking spaces would typically be required. The site plan indicates the placement of 11.4 percent of the site covered with buildings, 34.5 percent landscaped and 54.1 percent paved. The site lighting will be consistent with lighting per the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. All lighting will be directed downward and into the site not over spilling to the adjacent residential properties. The site plan indicates the dumpster service hours will be limited to 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The dumpster is located near the rear of the building and will be screened per the typical ordinance standards. Staff recommends the dumpster screening construction be of similar materials as the building. The developer has indicated the site will not have 24-hour activity. The proposed hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 2:00 am seven days per week. The site is zoned C-3, General Commercial District which would allow for the construction of a restaurant on the site. The lots were previously final platted W FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. containing the existing 3.19 acres. There is an existing strip retail center located on one of the proposed lots with the lot line dissecting the building. The request for a rezoning is to recognize the existing conditions on the site, clean up the lot configuration and allow for the construction of a new building. Staff is supportive of the request. Although the site is not meeting the entirety of the Overlay requirements, the site is in staff's opinion is meeting the intent of the Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with uses as allowed in the current zoning district. Staff does not feel the variation to allow the replatting of the two (2) lots as proposed containing less than the typical two (2) acre minimum will significantly impact the development or the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends the dumpster screening be consistent with the construction materials of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 8, 2008) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated on April 28, 2008, the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the August 7, 2008, Commission meeting. Staff stated the applicant had notify the Neighborhood Associations of the deferral request providing the date and time of the future public hearing. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the deferral request. There was no further discussion of the item. The commission voted to approve the item for deferral on the consent agenda by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has met with the area neighborhood associations as indicated in the previous deferral. There are no changes proposed for the site plan. Staff continues to recommend approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 2008) Mr. Tim Daters and Mr. JC Hosel were present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request. 10 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters and Associates addressed the Commission on the technical issues of the development. He stated the development containing 3.12 acres and was proposed as a two lot PCD. He stated 34.5 percent of the site would be landscaped. Mr. Daters stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial. He stated the site did share cross access with the property located immediately to the east. Mr. JC Hossel addressed the Commission. He stated the development was proposed as a fast food restaurant, a McDonalds. He stated the signage would be limited to a ground mounted sign. No electronic messaging was proposed. He stated the site would not operate 24 hours but would operate from 5 am to 2 am seven days per week. He stated elevations with proposed material had been provided to the Commission. He stated the site would require approval by the Chenal Design Review Committee. He stated the building construction would not be metal but some form of brick or combination of comparable material. Ms. Sandra Palmer addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was president of the Chevaux Neighborhood Association and the neighborhoods was very much opposed to the request. She stated there were 96 homes in the neighborhood with 155 residents. She stated of the residents she had a petition with 145 names in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood did not need a drive-thru restaurant next door to their quiet neighborhood. She stated there was a similar fast food restaurant located in the Wal-Mart, two miles down the road. She stated if the development did not fit the City and developers should not force the development to occur. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the volume of traffic, the trash generated from the site, the noise, light pollution and the safety of the patrons of the neighborhood and the drive-thru restaurant. She stated the sign proposed was six feet high. She stated the sign would be located on a five to ten foot embankment resulting in a fifteen foot tall sign. Ms. Palmer stated a McDonalds was not what Chenal Valley wanted marking the entrance to their neighborhood. She stated the hours of operation were a concern. She stated once the approval to allow the restaurant to operate from 5 am to 2 am was approved the owners would be back requesting an extension of the hours. She stated the existing restaurant closed at 9:00 pm. She stated the hours should match the existing uses in the area. Ms. Palmer stated light pollution was also a concern. She stated the office development located to the north of their subdivision had been raised to a height that the development was towering over their homes. She stated with the filling and the placement of light poles 20 to 25 feet high the lighting for the office development spilled onto the adjacent site and into their back yards. She stated a new commercial building was not needed. She questioned why the restaurant could not retro fit the Catfish City building for their use. 11 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or to the placement of two buildings on less than four acres. Ms. Palmer stated the neighborhood did not want a fast food restaurant at the entrance to their neighborhood. Mr. Edward Oglesby addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Aberdeen Court Property Owners Association. He stated there were 199 homes in the neighborhood and a pole of the residents had been taken and the neighborhood was not in support of the restaurant. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a fast food restaurant on the corner. He stated the volume of traffic and the speed of traffic was a concern. He stated there were also concerns with turning movements from this site and the bank located to the north. He stated the drives aligned and traffic traveling east bound wanting to enter the bank was at odds with motorist wanting to turn onto Chenonceau or into this development. He stated the Overlay had been in place for 25 plus years. He stated little by little the City had allowed development to occur inconsistent with the Overlay standards. He stated the neighborhood was concerned with the noise and the traffic a fast food restaurant would generate. He stated the site was more appropriate for a quiet commercial uses and not a business that operated from 5 am to 2 am. He stated traffic on Chenonceau backed up at this location. He stated it was unsafe to exit onto Cantrell without waiting for the light because of the speed of the traffic and visibility issues. The Commission questioned if the opposition was to the use or the variance from the Overlay standard. Mr. Oglesby stated the opposition was to the use. Commissioner Rector stated use was not an issue before the Commission. He stated the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial which by right allowed a drive-thru restaurant. Mr. Oglesby stated the lot existed with two acres. He stated the drive-thru was a concern he requested the Commission to deny the variance. He stated across Highway 10 there was an area of C-3, General Commercial zoned property. He questioned why the development did not occur there. He stated there was not a need for a fast food restaurant at this location. He stated the same restaurant was in the Wal-Mart just two miles down the road. He stated the Commission had been sold a bill of goods with the previous site plan. He stated the developers had a bank approved for the location then came back for a restaurant once the two buildings were approved. Mr. Frank Pohlkamp addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated he was representing the Bayonne Place property owners association. He stated the property owners association was totally against a McDonalds restaurant at this location. He stated the Commission should refuse the variance request by Orion and McDonalds to allow the development with less than the overlay standards. He stated the intersection carried a high level of traffic and the speed of the traffic was in excess of the posted 50 mph. He stated the hours of operation would be a magnet to attract late night undesirables to the area. He stated this would increase crime in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods and would impact property values. He stated the neighborhood concept of livability would be violated with trash, noise and odor as well as air pollution from vehicles idling at the drive-thru window. He stated the residents bought homes in Bayonne Place because of the peaceful atmosphere and neat appearance. He stated a restaurant with a drive-thru window would certainly 12 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. compromise the peaceful atmosphere. He stated the neighborhood did not see the need for a restaurant of this type when just down the road at the Super Center there was a McDonalds. He stated there were a number of other locations not adjacent to a residential neighborhood where sites were available for a restaurant location. Mr. Pohlkamp addressed the Commission stating he desired the Commission to consider the neighborhoods wishes and refuse the variance to the Highway 10 Overlay Plan. He read the Commission Mission statement stating to enhance the quality of life for the Citizens of Little Rock by providing a Department which encourages quality growth, development and redevelopment and the stabilization of neighborhoods through a concentrated effort of planning, land use controls, Historic Preservation, permitting and enforcement. Mr. David Grace addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the Commission had been provided letters of opposition from the Bayonne residents. He stated the developers had filed the application in April and had not meet with the residents until last week. He stated the request included a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development. He stated Orion left the lot size as indicated which was a business decision at the time of development of the retail center located to the south. He provided the Commission with accident reports at the intersection from 2000. He stated since 2000 55 accidents had occurred. He stated a number of the accidents had occurred since 2005 after the traffic signal was installed. He stated a drive-thru in the mist of the volumes of traffic in the area was a concern. He stated safety was not included in the staff write-up. Ms. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission in opposition. She stated she was representing the League of Women Voters who had taken a strong stand on the Highway 10 Overlay and felt the plan should be upheld. She stated the variances typically granted met the spirit of the plan. She stated many persons had bought land and made business decision for future development based on the plan, adopted by the City, dictating how the area would develop. She stated this was a strong reason to uphold the DOD. Mr. Daters stated as a part of the development a third lane would be added to Chenonceau Boulevard. He stated this would allow a dedicated left, through and right lane. He stated the developer would also incorporate improvements to the traffic signal. He stated there was not a break in Chenonceau, which would allow left turns into the site thus lessening the conflicting traffic movements. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning the traffic concerns and issues raised. Staff stated the drives were located in these areas because they aligned and the meet the spacing criteria of the ordinance. Staff stated the streets would be constructed to Master Street Plan standard and this did include the addition of a left turn lane on Chenonceau. The Commission questioned if the use would affect traffic patterns in the area. Staff stated they did not feel the use would affect the traffic patterns in the area. 13 FILE NO.: Z -7605-C (Cont. Staff stated one comment had been made concerning a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated this was incorrect and the variance was from the Highway 10 Overlay standards. Staff stated the lot development standards were established by the zoning through the Overlay. Staff stated the overlay required the placement of one building per two acres or a minimum lot size of two acres. Staff stated the Overlay established development standards. Staff stated the Commission was charged with determining if the development met the purpose and intent of the Overlay District. Staff stated use was an issue the Commission could consider since the request was a rezoning. Staff stated if approved the zoning of the property would be PCD and not the present C-3, General Commercial District. There was a general discussion concerning development standards and how the site could develop. The Commission noted the remaining three corners were zoned C-3 as was the property to the south of this site which could develop with a drive-thru restaurant by -right with the issuance of a building permit and no review by the City Planning Commission or Board of Directors. The Commission noted two weeks ago a review of the Highway 10 Overlay was undertaken to determine the number of variance request being considered in this area. It was stated Highway 10 was at the forefront of everyone's mind. The Commission stated the Planned Development process was the vehicle to allow development of property, which did not fully comply with the Overlay standard regardless of the issue. The Commission noted the site was located at a commercial node. Also noting all other corners were zoned appropriately to allow this same type use. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes and 2 absent. 14