Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION .TEM NO..._: 4 FILE NO .: S- 5 6 5 -AI,_ NAME: Candlewood Commercial Subdivision ,LOCATION: Cantrell Road and Candlewood Drive DEVELOPER: Flake & Co., Agent P. O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-8005 AREA: 16.7 acres ZONING: 110-3" PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES.REQUESTEO: None ENGINEER: White-Daters & Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS PROPOSED USES: 10 5 FT. NEW STREET; 0 Retail A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This proposal is a five -lot preliminary plat in support of Candlewood Commercial Site Plan. The five -lot proposal consists of a 16.7 acre lot to be utilized as a commercial location with four freestanding lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site currently is undeveloped and covered with the natural foliage of the area. There are no structures. Land on the east and west is being used commercially. C. EN-G_I_NEERING COMMENTS: A Traffic Impact analysis is required to know if additional street improvements will be required. The specifics of information requested within that report is within Item No. 7 of this agenda. No other concerns were expressed related to this preliminary plat. 1 e September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. Q Continued) Mr. Kemp, attorney, was representing Flake and Company. The applicant expressed his concern over the Highway 10 Plan and its application to this plat and plan. He requested deferral for two weeks for both the plat and site plan. A lengthy discussion of the request followed with comments from the City Attorney, Commissioners and Mr. Kemp. The only concern the Commissioners had was what issues would be discussed in the next two weeks. Mr. Kemp explained that he will talk to the City Attorney to eliminate legal issues and concentrate on site plan problems in the next meeting. The City Attorney also assured the Commissioners that deferring the plat and site plan for two weeks cannot change the applicant's request or withdraw the site plan. Mr. Jones, representing property on Highway 10, suggested a brief discussion by the Commissioners of all the problems concerning site plan and plat in order to have a productive discussion during the two week deferral. Steve Reed, from the Candlewood and Walton Heights Home Association, expressed his concern of the traffic issues to people living off Highway 10. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, was pleased to see aggressive comments from the City staff and Commissioners. Her concerns are traffic, landscaping and excavation. Commissioner John Schlereth asked to express his concern about the site plan to be considered in two weeks. He listed all ten staff concerns and pointed out in the analysis on the site plan review. He added his concerns of the overused "C-3" commercial land. He also quoted the resolution of the Board of Directors regarding Highway 10 Land Use Plan adopted on February 7, 1989. "Section 3. says that the Board of Directors encourages the land owners and developers of already existing Highway 10 commercial zoned acreage to develop those properties in a fashion consistent with the Highway 10 Plan's overall objective to create a scenic corridor, thereby avoiding strip commercial development. Section 6. says "The Planning Commission and the staff are directed to encourage all pre-existing zoning to conform to a PUD format", which obviously includes site plan review. 3 September 19, 1989 S.UBD I_V.I S. I.ON Item„No._ 4 (_Continued} -- And I would like to quote one other thing. This is an article that appeared in the Arkansas ...................................... Gaz_e.tt..e. on January 13, 1989 by Leroy Donald where . ...... he announced the shopping center plan for Highway 10 and he quoted John Flake, Board Chairman of Flake and Company, as saying, "that other sites had been considered but that the developers were "committed to preserving the integrity of the Highway 10 corridor. We felt that this site was consistent with plans established for that area by the City". Also, an article appeared on April 25, 1989 in the Arkansas Democrat stating things like, e.g.: "We plan to have extensive landscaping so that the center would blend in with the natural aspects of the surrounding neighborhood. We firmly believe that our center will be consistent with plans established for this area by the City." A motion was made to defer this plat and the site plan for two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention. 4 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-565-A NAME: Candlewood Commercial Site Plan LOCATION: Cantrell Road and Candlewood Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake & Co., Agent White-Daters & Associates, Inc. P. O. Box 990 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 16.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT.�NEWTSTREET: 0 ZONI-NG: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Retail PLANNING_DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None SITE PROPOSAL: This applicant's proposal is to construct commercial facilities on a 16.7 acres site adjacent to Highway 10. This site will have mixed uses of grocery and retail. Total proposed building area to be constructed is +/- 125,320 square feet. There will be one primary structure with grocery, six structures with retail and four other structures without suggested use. A 40 foot setback to the buildings is provided along the Highway 10 frontage. A minimum of 15 feet is provided on the west and 12 feet on the east side for landscaping. 1 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. 7 Continued A. PROPOSAL_/REQUES_T: This proposal consists of a five element site plan which is a large commercial building with one large user and the potential of several smaller users. There are four outparcels on the Highway 10 property which are indicated "unknown user". The site has a secondary access via Candlewood Drive on the west. The development proposes two points of ingress/egress on State Highway No. 10: one at the southeast corner and another between Lots 3 and 4. B. EXISTI_NQ CONDITIONS: This property is currently undeveloped, and partially covered with natural foliage of the area. There are no structures. C. ENGINEERING, COMMENTS: �. Provide traffic impact study and improvements to Candlewood Drive at Cantrell Road, including sidewalks. 2. Conform to Detention and Excavation requirements. 3. Changes in parking and driveways will be required in the outparcel area. This item should be coordinated with the Traffic Engineering staff. D. I,SSUES1_LEGAL_/TECHN I CAL f DESIGN 1. Lack of grading plan to properly evaluate exposure of slope. 2. Lack of signage, lighting and landscaping plans. 3. Specific treatment should be offered to provide minimum of two .carrying lanes on Candlewood for initial development and future extension to the north. 2 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item. 7 (Continued) E. ANALYSIS: Planning and Engineering staffs have performed a thorough review of this proposed commercial development and have some concerns. These concerns must be addressed before the staff can support the development. These concerns are: 1. The excavation and cut for the rear buildings. 2. The traffic generated by a develo..pment of this type (overloading of Highway 10 at this site). 3. The removal of all trees during grading. 4. Inadequate landscaping as indicated in the Highway 10 Plan (no berming). 5. The four outparcels and their impact on the corridor. 6. The lack of conformance with the objectives of the Highway 10 Plan. 7. The impact on the single family to the east (curb cut, buffering). 8. The total number of curb cuts. 9. Disregard for the site design precedent set by Safeway. 10. Lack of sign and lighting plans. The staff is concerned that this type of development with the outparcels which would set a pattern for small lot commercial development that might escalate over time creating strip commercial along Highway 10 with numerous driveways and traffic problems. Due to this potential traffic impact, the staff feels a traffic impact study on Highway 10 and Candlewood Drive must be performed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral of the plat to resolve the various questions. 3 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION _I_tem-No. 7 (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 7, 1989) The application was represented by Joe White and Mr. Rett Tucker. In the course of the presentation by the applicant, it was pointed out that the east side driveway should be aligned with Black Road coming up from the south and building envelops are much bigger than the proposed 3,000 square foot buildings. The developer agreed to clarify this issue. Also, staff suggested they include in the Bill of Assurance that the proposed building line would be far away from Highway 10 to allow future green space„ specific dimension not determined. The discussion then moved to the comments of the Engineering staff. After briefly discussing these points, it was suggested by staff to submit written explanations for traffic issues. The discussion then moved to the area of landscaping and slope stabilization. Mr. White presented a grade plan and explained to the Committee the proposed slope stabilization and landscaping design. The question was then raised as to whether this site plan design is appropriate for the Highway 10 Plan. The discussion continued for an extended period. The Committee then closed the discussion. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ....................................................... ..... _......... . (September 19, 1989) The Planning Commission discussed this item in conjunction with Item No. 4 of this agenda. Therefore, the commentary included in their record on Item No. 4 applies to this matter. 4