Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548-G Staff AnalysisJuly 26, 1994 ITEM NO.: B1 FILE NO.: S-548-C NAME: TCBY TREAT EXPRESS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side is Highway 10, approximately 100 feet east of Pinnacle Valley Road, in the Kroger Center parking lot. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• TCBY RICHARD CAULDER 1100 TCBY Tower 1100 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Ave. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 688-8220 688-8229 AREA: N.A. NUMBER OF LOTS: N.A. FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• C-3 PROPOSED USE: Drive-thru restaurant PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks approval to place a "TCBY Treat Express" unit on the Kroger Center parking lot on Highway 10. The unit is an 8'-4" x 20'-0" drive-thru TCBY yogurt sales restaurant, with a walk-up sales and outside seating area. r� The unit's location takes 9 of the existing shopping center's parking spaces. Access to the unit from Highway 10 is by way of the shopping center access drives. A. PR POSAL RE UEST: The applicant seeks site plan review in order to place a yogurt sales unit on the parking lot of the Highway 10 Kroger Center. A number of the existing parking spaces are proposed to be taken for the placement of the unit; other parking spaces are proposed to be taken for a walk-up service and seating area. The vehicle route for the drive-thru is by way of an access drive to shopping center parking spaces. July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B1 (font.) FILE NO.: S-548-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed TCBY Treat Express is to be located in the Kroger Center parking lot, at the "front" of the lot just off Highway 10. There are 3 undeveloped "out parcels" along the front of the parking lot which were provided in the original Candlewood Commercial Subdivision plat; the proposed TCBY location is not in one of these designated out parcels, but is in an area designated as parking area for the shopping center. The existing zoning of the shopping center site is C-3. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that the relationship of the drive-thru traffic's line of travel to the adjacent parking spaces (i.e., they are in opposite directions to one another) and the drive-thru's sharing of the backing and maneuvering space for parking is unacceptable. The drive-thru traffic must have its own driving area and have adequate vehicle stacking space. Water Works indicates that water service to the unit is shown to be from a private water line, and is shown to cross the shopping center's main entrance drive. The tapping of the line, construction of the service line, and meter box will be the applicant's responsibility; Water Works will be involved only to the extent of setting a meter. The applicant must contact Water Works for the required meter size and its location. Water Works points out that service to this site may present problems because of the existing pavement. Wastewater Utility reports that sewer is available, and that there will be no adverse effect in the providing of service. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review points out that the Shopping Center is located along Highway 10 and is subject to the Highway 10 Overlay requirements. The building setback line required by the Overlay is 100 feet; the proposed building is shown to be approximately 90 feet off E July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: BI Cont. FILE NO.: S-548-C Highway 10. The building, then, will have to conform to the 100 foot building setback line for the Highway 10 Overlay. The Landscape Ordinance will also require a minimum 3 foot wide landscape strip to separate the building from the parking area, and a minimum 6 foot wide landscape strip at the lease lot line. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The unit and associated service area is shown to be located out in the middle of the parking lot, with no lease line designated. The lease area for the use is to be shown, and the required landscape strips are to be provided. When the Candlewood Commercial Subdivision was approved, the Neighborhoods and Planning staff and the Planning Commission were concerned about the number, size, and location of the shopping center's out parcels. when the subdivision was approved, the 3 out parcels, as shown on the plat, were approved. The proposed TCBY Treat Express is not within one of the allotted out parcels. The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 31-13, requires site plan review for developments "involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings...." The site plan review for the proposed TCBY Treat Express is required pursuant to these provisions. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-502, stipulates the required parking for various types of uses. For a shopping center with 120,275 square feet, 338 parking spaces are required. The site plan for the shopping center indicates that 592 spaces are provided. E. ANALYSIS• The site plan is deficient in that it does not show the lease lot line, nor does it provide the required perimeter and building landscaping. The building location is closer to Highway 10 than is allowed. The proposed travel direction at the drive-thru window is in the opposite direction of the line of travel for access to the parking spaces, and back-up area and maneuvering space conflicts with stacking space for the drive-thru. The allowable out parcels for the shopping center are designated, and the proposed location is outside one of these parcels. 3 July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548--C F . STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application, and recommends that the proposed facility be located within one of the designated out parcels. If the Commission chooses to approve the location, however, the comments noted regarding designating the lease lot line, landscaping, conforming to the required building setback line, and designating a proper drive-thru travel lane which does not conflict with other traffic are important to be addressed. STAFF COMMENT: This item is to be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on July 7, which is after the date the agenda is printed and mailed to the Commission members. A report of the Committee's comments, then, will be made at the Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DULY 12, 1994) Staff outlined the request, and reported that the applicant had notified staff prior to the meeting that there had been a misunderstanding concerning the form of the notice to abutting property owners; that the notices had shown the address of the abutting property owner's in the space provided for the applicant's location. Staff said that = the ------- -- notices would have to be resent, and suggested that the -item. - be deferred for 2 weeks, to the July 26, 1994 Commission hearing. Staff pointed out that the applicant had not submitted for review responses to the deficiencies noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting, including the submission of a project narrative or the revised drawings. Staff indicated that the applicant was prepared to make a presentation regarding their responses to the Subdivision Committee's comments, and suggested that, in order to give not only the Subdivision Committee members, but the Commission as a whole, an opportunity to hear these responses, the applicant be permitted to proceed with their presentation. Mr. Richard Caulder spoke representing TCBY. He said that the building had been relocated, not only to address the concern staff had regarding traffic, but to conform to the 4 July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-548-C Highway 10 setback requirement. He said that the lease lot line had been delineated, and that the shopping center owner had agreed to forego one of the designated out parcels in exchange for TCBY being allowed to occupy the location on the parking lot. He presented a photograph of the type of unit which is proposed, and stated that there would be no additional signage than the signs located on the unit. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Caulder if the unit would be physically relocated to one of the designated out parcels, of if this were a swap of one location for the other. Mr. Caulder responded that the unit was proposed to be placed on the existing parking lot, and that the shopping center owner would give up one of the out parcels in exchange for this consideration. He went on to say that the proposed unit is a test unit, and is placed in various locations to test the market to see if the market is strong enough to warrant placing a permanent structure at the location. He said that TCBY had spoken with the shopping center owner regarding locating a permanent building on one of the designated out parcels if the test was successful. Commissioner Oleson asked the applicant to address the provisions for landscaping. Mr. Caulder responded that the extent of the landscaping is shown on the plan: the planters and benches. Commissioner Willis quizzed the applicant on the type of building and the permanence of the use of the site. He concluded from the description that the unit was portable, and that the use was proposed to be temporary until the market could be tested, at which time, if the market warranted, a permanent building would be located on one of the designated out parcels. Staff pointed out that one of the deficiencies noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting was that a project narrative had not been submitted, and that the information being furnished at the Commission meeting was being related for the first time. Staff suggested that the site plan review be pursued as a temporary use rather than as the permanent use being sought. Staff indicated that the applicant could clarify the application to seek a 1-year renewable permit, allowing TCBY permission to occupy the parking lot without 5 July 26, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B1 (Cont.) _ FILE_ NO.: 5= 548-C having to conform to the requirements for re -platting, landscaping, and construction required for a permanent structure. A motion was made and seconded to defer consideration of the item until the July 26, 1994 Planing Commission Hearing. Commissioner Oleson wanted verification that the applicant could mail the corrected legal notices to the abutting property owners, and meet the 15-day requirement. The applicant assured the Commission that the notices would be mailed that day, which is 15 days prior to the July 26th. meeting. The motion to defer the hearing was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 26, 1994) Staff reported that corrected notices had been mailed out to property owners within 200 feet, and that the notices had been mailed in compliance with the 15-day requirement. Staff reported that further developments had taken place since the July 12th. Commission meeting's revelations that, in lieu of the assumed permanent building which was proposed to be located on the Kroger Center parking lot, the application was for a transportable modular unit. Since that meeting, the applicant had submitted to staff a plan which shows the transportable modular unit located on the western -most subdivision out parcel in lieu of on the existing parking lot. Staff reported that the applicant had said that the shopping center owners had withdrawn their approval of the parking lot location, and that now the unit was to be located on the out parcel. This would require paving a portion of the out parcel. A representative of TCBY confirmed the staff report. He indicated that the building would conform to the 100 foot building setback requirement, and that the requested time period for the temporary use was for one year or less. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 6