Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0869-1 ApplicationOffice of 723 West klakham Comprehensive U111t) nick, Arktrnsns 72:01 Planning 371-4790 ITEM NO. A DATE June 21, 1989 DEAR Mr. Jones: This letter is to inform you that your request for Site Plan Pe-trieW approval for the Highway 10. Commercial Ctrijas reviewed by the Planning Commission on �__,NfaL 16, 1989 your application: I. A. denial as submitted. P. approval as requested. C. deferred to . The following action was ta�:en on See attaclied minutes D. approval, conditioned upon: E. additional information. II. Utility Comments: All utilities connents must be reflected on revised plats. Due to the technical aspects of certain plats, there are in most cases follow-up procedures that need to be done. If upon receipt of this ]--_ter you find that your plat was approved, please make it a point to contact the Office of Comprehensive Planning at 371-4790 to find out what the technical instructions will be. There may be times in which revised copies of certain plats are needed. Please make note that no building permits will be issued until those conies are received in the Office of Comprehensive Planning. Please feel free to call at any time if you have any problems or concerns. Sincerely, rS Rich rd Wood Curr it Planning Manager RW/nl City of Little Rock fice of Comprehensive 1= t- Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company LS6uthwestern Bell Telephone Company Little Rock Municipal Water Works Little Rock Wastewater Utility System County Planning Little Rock Fire Department n Name: Highway File No. Location: TvDe of Issue: 10 Commercial Center Site Plan 77. �11 JAN 9 1989 ' J RE: Highway 10 Commercial Center (Safeway Site Plan) Gentlemen: On February 21 , 19 89 , the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced subject. A copy of the Issue is enclosed for your consideration, and Your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Sinc ly, r i Office of Comprehensive Planning (Please respond below, and return this letter for our records). Approved as submitted Easements required (see attached plat or description below Comments: By; Enclosure cc: Engineering Division r o � z. z L d CD U d L p U y3 cj� W O L/J W H W tA J fn W O �-ZLL r 1 W +-) H 2 C'3 +-) J WZ r � H J L.L. d J O 2:: H �r O LL O F - +3 H U- ft3 i U O U O n j1 •r W r 1V/ j V) U Q- LL ¢ . LL O O O +-3 4-3 in ro E 4-3L) � O U +-) � O r- N r r 7 d N C1 •r7 - r•qi n ZI 7 O ¢ ¢ E '6 COrn 4- O rL z CO C O r r c +� "a • r Lv O r N O O O i. +) Ckf m n. cn W, •• Mehlburger 201 Sonlh Lord Tanner P.O. Box 3837 Robinson & Asso ates Lilth, Rotk, AR 72203-3837 Architects -Engineers >Ol 37> > 331 April 26, 1989 Mr. Richard Wood Office of Comprehensive Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Highway 10 Commercial Center Site Plan Review MTR&A Project #288-290 Dear Richard: Attached are five blueline copies of the current site plan for the above referenced project. The following revisions have been made to the plan: 1. The branch bank location has been moved further South to provide a setback of _+125 feet from the center line of Highway 10 and +63 feet from the R.O.W. boundary. Parking and drives were adjusted to accommodate this shift. 2. The retail building was reduced in size by 1,315 square feet for a total of +34,190 square feet, maximum gross building area. 3. The project identification signs have been shifted further South for a minimum sign setback of 20 feet. 4. The site data information is revised to reflect parking and square footage changes. Please contact my office if you have any questions or require further information. We will provide a preliminary grading plan no later than May 1, 1989. Sincerely, MEHLBURGER, TANNER, ROBINSON 4ANSSOCIATES, INC. Robert M. =own Landscape Architect RMB: pfp Enclosure City of Little Rock �— Office of 723 West Markham Comprehensive Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Planning February 24, 1989 Mr. Robert Brown Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Associates P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Highway 10 Commercial Center Site Plan Dear Mr. Brown: The purpose of this communication is to provide notice that the Little Rock Planning Commission accepted the request for deferral of the referenced site plan. This item has been reset for Planning Commission hearing on May 16, 1989. If you require assistance or further information from this office on this item, do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, R I CHARD WOOD Current Planning Manager RW:gIs cc: File S-869 February 21, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors present. The applicant submitted a request for deferral in the appropriate time frame. The Planning Staff suggested that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 16, 1989 Planning Commission Agenda. A motion to this effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. February 14, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Gary Greason City Planning Director 723 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Rd. (Z-5139) Dear Mr. Greason: We respectfully request a 90-day deferral on our site -plan review application (case # Z-5139) scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1989. Due to the ongoing discussion by the Board of Directors as to "scenic corridor development criteria," we formally request that our application be deferred for 90 days while we consider all alternatives. If there is anything else that I need to do to effectuate this request, please notify me immediately. Thank you for your consideration. ly yours, v Don Chambers DC/jn cc: Tom Dalton Mark Stodola Mayor Buddy Villines David Menz Robert Vogel David Jones February 14, 1989 HAND DELIVERED The Honorable Buddy Villines Mayor City of Little Rock, Arkansas City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Rd. (Z-5139) Dear Mayor Villines: We hereby formally request that our current rezoning request (case #Z-5139) known as Highway 10 and Taylor Loop Road, scheduled to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 21, 1989 be deferred from consideration by the Board for a period of 90 days. This deferral request is made in light of the Board of Director's continuing discussion as to "scenic corridor development criteria" along the Highway 10 corridor. If there is anything else that we need to do to effectuate this request, please notify me immediately. Thank you for your consideration. rely yours, Don Chambers DC/jn cc: Tom Dalton Mark Stodola Gary GT r! Ben David Menz Robert Vogel David Jones U �.. h N�� Office of 723 West Marknam Comprehensive Littla Rock, Arkansas 72201 Planning Name: Highway 10 Commercial Cente File No. Location: Type of Issue: Site Plan Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Little Rock Municipal Water Works Little Rock Wastewater Utility System County Planning mottle Rock Fire Department RE: Highway 10 Commercial Center (Safeway Site Plan) Gentlemen: On February 21 lg 89 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced subject. A copy of the Issue is enclosed for your consideration, and Your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Sinc ly, Office of Comprehensive Planning (Please respond below, and return this letter for our records). Approved as submitted Easements required (see attached plat or description below) Comments: By Enclosure cc: Engineering Division nON The 8ighway 10 Plan is to be used by the City as a guide for future land use decisions. It denotes appropriate land use types, future needed streets and parks as well as floodways and steep slopes. The Plan attempts to guide potential growth and redevel- opment in an orderly manner with particular emphasis on the redevelopment of Highway 10 into a scenic corridor. The Highway 10 study in- cluded formulation of a series of objectives to better define the intent of the Plan. These objectives were; 1. Protect the scenic quality of the Highway 10 Corridor while recognizing strong development demand pressure. Devise a land use pattern compatible with present and planned future traffic capacity of Highway 10. 3. Create a distinctive park- way atmosphere along Highway 10 by encouraging substantial building set- backs, extensive landscap- ing and uniform tree plantings. 4. Minimize the number of curb -cuts along Highway 10 so that the roadway will be able to carry traffic at a high level of service. Provide for significant redevelopment opportunities at key selected locations that are fashioned to pro- tect the public interest and promote orderly growth. Facilitate transition of areas to more intense uses along 9ighway 10 without undesired effects of small lot strip development. v u.,..&_,.. - - -- - - nsi- ned a LAND W • RESIDENTIA Land Use Plan a for residential has three types shown; single fi density multi-f; multi -family (MI The Plan do any density regL single family, t courage new deve follow similar c tablished in the vicinity. The n densities do hav density ranges. The LMF pla is for multi-fam ranging from 6 t acre. Those are on the Plan are perties currentl multi -family artd the zoning appro� would be applical those properties the 12-18 units l density. OFFICE: Fot shown for office Plan. All four c are zoned for off concentrated in t of the Rodney par Highway 10 area. sites is zoned 0- office sites are Other office uses in the transition described below. A COMMERCIAL: mercial designati plan are primaril major intersectio. hibit strip comme opment along Highi The commerci are at Pleasant R Highway 10, north 10 at Candlewood; (East)/Highway 10 posed PUD site at Johnson Ranch. T1 from a smaller nei center size to a f (63 acre) communit site. February 21, 1989 - Item No. 13 Staff Analysis The Planning and Engineering staffs have performed a thorough review of this commercial site plan. The developer's architect has given much attention to detail in the preparation of the revised plan and the supporting elements. The plan offers buffering along the west and south sides and has adjusted several offending features. The lighting has been reduced in height and intensity. The Safeway loading dock has been removed from the south side of the project which is bordered by residential uses. The conventional Safeway building design has been softened by use of earth or natural tones. However, these design features doAo not overcome more fundamental problems with the proposed development. The proposed development clearly violates and undermine., the adopted Highway 10 Plan. Aspects of the site plan that present problems include the free standing fast food and b k buildings. This type of strip frontage development would set a that would escalate over time into small- Zv e strip loWcommercial development with numerous-driveways,'related traffic problems, and signs along Highway 10.f.Also�the ro os d uses and structures on the site are not compatible wi dential uses, and the buffering is not adequate. ,�resi ennial uses, especially to the south and east, will be adversely affected in terms of view, not n r i ntial environment. The lack of a PUD application A proo1'7ted iorwtA� called for, `� in the Highway 10 Plan. Even an office or multifamily developmentz would have to be submitted as a PUD under the Transition Zone Guidelines in the Highway 10 Plan. With a PUD application, uses could be restricted and specific conditions attached to the develop- meilt by the Board of Directors._7 Finally it should be noted that th�§+site plan violates the basic intent of a e lan review which is that "all development shall be designed in such a way as to minimize any potential deleterious impact on the surrounding area" (Sec. 36-126(c)l. Staff Recommendation Denial of the site plan based on reasons contained paragrap1t-two,4'-�/,,,,,,0 of the staff analysis. Issues/Legal/Technical/Design 1. Lack of consistency with Highway 10 Plan. 2. Out parcels encouraging small lot strip commerci�4w ghway 10. 3. Development in Transition Zone without protection of PUD application. '� 4. Incompatibility with residential uses. S. Lack of a sketch grading plan to properly evaluate land alteration activities. 6. Lack of adequate buffering for residential uses. 7. Rezoning to C-2 not yet ��W approved by the Board of Directors. 90W� AIF UK on w W�� r WATERCIPAL � t 9 February 1989 Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: HIGHWAY 10 COMMERCIAL CENTER - SAFEWAY SITE PLAN On 21 February 1989, the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced plat. We would appreciate the consideration of our comments and/or recommendations. NO O&TECTIONS. A PRO RATA CHARGE OF $12.00 PER FRONT FOOT APPLIES FOR -ANY CONNECTIONS OFF HIGHWAY 10 LARGER THAN 4-INCH. LITTLE ROCK MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS Dennis Y DY: vs arbro,>� - pistributian E i'r�e/ enclosure 221 EAST CAPITOL AVENUE. POST OFFICE BOX 1789 . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203. 05011 ' 77-1?nn 0 TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: JIM DAILEY CITY DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 10 DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1989 In light of recent public interest and, more specifically, concern of west Little Rock (Highway 10) property owners, I support the idea to delay consideration of any plan modification at this time. My position is based on the following points: No one desires strip commercial zoning, and everyone desires a "quality scenic corridor." a9 There are certain inherited "givens" such as land already zoned and certain non -conforming commercial sites. a The plan as presently structured may not assure "quality in commercial nodes or for that matter in multifamily or office areas. ca There may be situations in the future when a commercial development outside the commercial nodes could be desirable. • 52c1F. 41. R S -c r- . .5— 0 The City and property owners may desire to participate in a shared expense formula to provide financing for the added expense of a higher quality corridor. �.,�,y�.,� /a immediately begin to define "quality, scenic corridor" and, where possible, encourage or require adherence to the defined standards. requir&-Pet that all new zonings (office multifamily and commercial) come i PUD form. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS encourage all pre-existing zoning to conform to a PUD format. s¢� 7 • An ad hoc citizens committee representing residential through cominercial property owners along the Highway 10 corridor be appointed immediately to define - d­-i ^ standards �,_c_- i mm �� � • The Little Rack Board of Directors s n .t l ri =4Ls the cost differentials for service delivery in various parts of the City and devise a plan that promotes healthy growth and at the same time ensures equitable treatment for all our tax base. As our City changes, we have significant challenges encompassing quality of life issues, and the financial capability to deliver services to a diverse population. JD:mr I RESOLUTION NO. 8,103 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4 REGARDING THE HIGHWAY 10 LAND USE PLAN. 5 6 WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock has grown in a westerly 7 direction over the past thirty (30) years with that growth 8 proceeding along major traffic corridors; and 9 WHEREAS, unplanned land development along major traffic 10 corridors has already produced strip commercial development on 11 Geyer Springs Road, Asher Avenue, and Rodney Parham Road, with 12 associated traffic problems, visual pollution and increased 13 infrastructure requirements (such as road widening); and 14 WHEREAS, since 1976 the City of Little Rock has been 15 concerned about the threat of strip commercial development along 16 Highway 10 west of Interstate 430, the northernmost traffic 17 corridor proceeding west of Little Rock; and 18 WHEREAS, between 1976 and 1986, the City of Little Rock 19 expended considerable funds for professional land use 20 consultation and enlisted the voluntary assistance of numerous 21 representatives from a cross-section of land use development 22 interests for the purpose of developing land use policies for 23 Highway 10 that would permit westward growth without producing 24 strip commercial development; and 25 WHEREAS, on May 20, 1986, the City adopted a twenty (20) 26 year land use plan for the Highway 10 Corridor by Ordinance No. 27 15,803 after detailed and extensive study by urban planners, 28 citizen study committees, the Planning Commission, and the Board 29 of Directors; and 30 WHEREAS, commercial development interests now urge that 31 new policies be incorporated into the Highway 10 Land Use Plan 32 which would recognize a need for additional commercial acreage 33 notwithstanding the fact that less than ten (10%) percent of the 34 more than one hundred sixty-eight (168) acres designated for 35 commercial development in the Plan have been developed to date; 36 and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 , 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, proponents of the Highway 10 Plan maintain that these proposed new development policies are inconsistent with the rationale and objectives of the Highway 10 Plan, which may lead to the undesirable result of strip commercial development, and are thus unwarranted at this time given the abundance of already designated commercial acreage in the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The Little Rock Board of Directors does hereby determine that insufficient time has elapsed since adoption of the Highway 10 Plan thus rendering it impossible to give the present plan a fair and adequate assessment of its overall effectiveness regarding commercial development in the Highway 10 Corridor. SECTION 2. Further, the Board of Directors affirms its commitment to the development purposes and objectives stated in the Highway 10 Plan and reaffirms its use as a land use guide until a substantial need for review has been demonstrated after May 20, 1991. This directive is taken in order to provide for the creation of a reasonable evaluation period before re -assessing the Plan's overall effectiveness. SECTION 3. The Board of Directors encourages the landowners and developers of already existing Highway 10 commercially -zoned acreage to develop those properties in a fashion consistent with the Highway 10 Plan's overall objective of creating a scenic corridor thereby avoiding strip commercial development. ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: MAYOR SECTION 4. City Staff is directed to work with interested community groups to immediately begin to define "quality, scenic corridor" and, were possible, encourage or require adherence to the defined standards. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission is directed to consider requiring that all new zoning (office, multi -family and commercial) a come under/PUD form. SECTION 6. The Planning Commission and Staff are directed to encourage all pre-existing zoning to conform to a PUD format. SECTION 7. An ad hoc citizens committee representing residential through commercial property owners along the Highway 10 corridor shall be appointed immediately to define any additional standards which may be developed for zoning on Highway 10. SECTION 8. The Little Pock Board of Directors requests that Staff determine the cost differentials for service delivery in various parts of the City and devise a plan that promotes healthy growth and at the same time ensures equitable treatment for all our tax base. ADOPTED: ATTEST: APPROVED: T�ann�r P-0. 13e,x 3837 Robinson Little Rock, Al? 72203-3837 & Assodates Architects -Engineers 501 %375-5331 January 30, 1989 Mr. Richard Wood Office of Comprehensive Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Highway 10 Commercial Center MTR&A Project #288-290 Dear Richard: Attached are six bluelines of the revised site plan for the above referenced project. Several revisions have been made that address the relationship between the proposed development and Westchester Subdivision. They are as follows: 1. The truck loading dock has been moved to the western end of the building and positioned so that sound will not be reflected directly south. 2. The buffer area along the southern boundary has been expanded. Our preliminary grading study indicates that we can preserve between fifty and sixty feet of undisturbed, wooded area adjacent to the subdivision. 3. Along the buffer area, the proposed screen fence has been shifted north to enclose the expanded undisturbed area. 4. All dumpsters at the rear of the building will be screened with an additional enclosure with gates. 5. We have agreed to provide directional lighting that will minimize the amount of glare and excess light affecting the residents. The rear of the building will be painted a dark color to absorb any reflected light and reduce visibility of the building. Please contact my office if you have any questions or require additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, MEHLBURGER, TANNER, ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. �f Ro t M;o'wn Landscape Architect RMB:vjm enclosures cc: Wes Lowder David Jones Robert Vogel laq�+jr ear-+L:'t`iii�"44RG�$%:-r wr�.r , Office of 723 West Markham Comprehensive Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 - Planning Name: Highway File No. Location: Type of Issue: AA�' kansas Power & Light Company `Krkansas Louisiana Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Little Rock Municipal Water Works Little Rock Wastewater Utility System County Planning Little Rock Fire Department 10 Commercial Center Site Plan RE: Highway 10 Commercial Center (Safeway Site Plan) Gentlemen: On February 21 , 19 89 , the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced subject. A copy of the Issue is enclosed for your consideration, and Your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Si nc ly, O'�fice of Comprehensive Planning (Please res nd below, and return this letter for our records). Reproved as submitted bF iowEasements required (see attached plat or description � Comments: Enclosure cc: Engineering Division EASEMENT APPROVED ! EASEMENT REQUIRED �—! -- DATE J� r B 9Y IasillICT S5(7AP. C�d1�5 O. lj.t o3cY 37 g. R Associates n Little, Ro(k, AR 72203-3,Y31 Architects -Engineers 501 '375-5331 January 9, 1989 Mr. Richard Wood Office of Comprehensive Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 mow- --- Re: Highway 10 Commercial Center MTR&A Project #288-290 Dear Richard: Please find attached copies of our proposed site plan for site plan review. As you are aware, this plan and review process is provided in conjunction with the current zoning request for this property. This site consists of approximately ten acres and will have mixed uses of grocery, retail, restaurant and banking. The total proposed (maximum) building area to be constructed is +/- 91,450 square feet. There will be one primary structure with grocery and retail and two other structures for restaurant and bank use. The project will be constructed in phases with the grocery building and parking as the first phase. Substantial buffer and landscape areas are proposed in this plan. A forty foot undisturbed area in the rear and a twenty foot area along the Western boundary is planned. Slope transition areas are shown which will also be landscaped with turf and new trees. A forty foot setback to building and parking is provided along the Highway 10 frontage. With careful grading design, we should be able to save trees in this zone also. A minimum of fifteen feet is provided on the Eastern side for landscaping and an opaque screen fence will be constructed abutting the residential use areas. A preliminary cross section running North and South is shown to illustrate the proposed finish grade and relationship to Westchester Subdivision to the South. All details pertaining to owners, parking numbers, ratios, etc., are shown on the drawing. A current boundary survey is also attached. Mr. Richard Wood January 9, 1989 Page 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact my office at your convenience. Sincerely, MEHLBURGER, TANNER, ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. obert M. rown Landscape Architect RMB:vjm enclosures City of Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (/Arkansas Power & Light Company Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Little Rock Municipal Water Works Little Rock Wastewater Utility System County Planning Little Rock Fire Department r -O A/� ~// Name: Highway 10 Commercial Center File No. Location: Type of Issue: Site Plan RE: Highway 10 Commercial Center (Safeway Site Gentlemen: On February 21 , 19 89 , the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced subject. A copy of the Issue is enclosed for your consideration, and Your comments and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Si nc ly, J ' Office of Comprehensive Planning (Please respond below, and return this letter for our records). Approved as submitted Easements required (see attached plat or description below Comments : PR%N By : Enclosure cc: Engineering Division /_l 9 q 9 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL NODE EXPANSION Presented below are recommended commercial node expansion standards for the Rock Creek and Highway 10 corridors. These standards should be adopted by ordinance. Expansion of nodes should not be automatically allowed even if they meet these standards. Recommended Standards * 1 Compatibility The expansion must be compatible with existing adjacent land uses. 2. Land Use Patterns The expansion must not create the following undesirable land use patterns: (a) strip commercial development; (b) excessive node expansion exceeding the percentage standard (see #6); or (c) undermining of established residential areas. Expansions should leave at least 1200 feet between commercial nodes to avoid growth of the nodes toward each other. The impacts on neighbor- hood properties should not be so strong as to make it difficult to justify denial of commercial zoning for the affected properties in violation of expansion standards. Step-down transitions from high intensity uses to low intensity uses are encouraged. * Definitions of terms are presented on page 7. 3. Rezoning Process A planned unit development application shall be required for any expansion of a node. 4. Uses Adjacent to Single Family Areas No commercial uses shall be allowed adjacent to existing single family residential uses. 5. Off -site Streets and Drainage Impacts must be mitigated as necessary by off -site street and drainage improvements, so that neighboring streets and drainage facilities will be adequate to accommodate increased traffic and run-off. 6. Maximum Expansion Once established, the maximum expansion of a neighborhood commercial node shall be twenty-five percent (25%). The maximum expansion of community and regional commercial nodes shall be determined by the Board of Directors based on the standards herein. 7. Floor Area Ratio The maximum floor area ratio for a commercial expansion shall be 0.15. 8. Out -Parcels In the expansion area, there shall be no out -parcels along street frontages. 9. Buffer Areas A 50 foot undisturbed or replanted buffer area shall be provided adjacent to multi -family zoned areas. 10. Landscaping of Parking Lots Landscaping of parking lots shall consist of three times the landscaped area required by the Landscape Ordinance. 11. Landscaping Along Street Frontages A 40 foot landscaped strip shall be provided along and parallel to all street property lines; or landscaped earth berms four feet high shall be provided along streets where parking adjoins the streets. Shrubs and smaller trees shall be planted on the berms. The berm area shall be at least 25 feet in width. 12. Balanced Design and Parking Restrictions Parking shall be designed in concert with the building and landscaping, so as to provide for a balance of all elements and avoid large unbroken paved surfaces. Parking shall not be allowed in buffer areas, and off - site parking is prohibited. 13. Number of Structures A maximum of two principal structures shall be permitted. No freestanding accessory buildings shall be permitted. 3 14. Lighting A lighting plan shall be required indicating the location, size, type, and number of all external lighting systems. All lighting shall be designed so as to cast illumination only onto the site served, and the lighting shall be shielded from view of neighboring multi -family residential lots. 15. Signage Limitations All development proposals shall be limited to wall - mounted signs, with roof and freestanding signs prohibited. The standards for wall signs shall be as provided in the Little Rock Sign Code. 16. Ingress and Egress All development proposals shall be limited to the street access standards as set forth in the commercial subdivision plat requirements of the Little Rock Subdivision Regulations. Higher standards for placement or design may be imposed where specifically identified as a need by the Traffic Engineer. 17. Truck/Service Areas and Trash Containers Such areas shall not be visible from nearby residential areas or be visible from any street. Such areas must be screened from view. They shall not be located in proximity to multi -family uses, so that noise and view will not be problems. 4 18, Setbacks The following setbacks shall apply along all street frontages: 100 foot setback of commercial structures from arterial rights -of -way; 50 foot setback of commercial structures from other streets (non -arterial). 19. Building Height Limitation For neighborhood node expansions, a maximum height of 20 feet shall be permitted. For community node expansions, a maximum height of 35 feet shall be permitted. For regional node expansions, a maximum building height of 35 feet shall be permitted. In each case, building height shall be measured to the highest point of building elevation. 5 POTENTIAL NODE EXPANSIONS Highway 10 Corridor * The node at the proposed Glenn Johnson Ranch development could expand to the north and west based on zoning lines. * The node between Pinnacle Valley Road and Pankey could be expanded to the north based on zoning lines, although there could be topographic problems. * The node at the intersection of Chenal Parkway with Cantrell could expand to the south, east or north based on zoning lines. * The Taylor Loop/Cantrell Road node could expand to the north. * The node at Pleasant Ridge and Cantrell could not expand, given the existing land use pattern. Rock Creek/Chenal Parkway Corridor * The node at Rock Creek and Kanis Road could expand to the west or north based on zoning lines. * The node at Chenal Parkway and the Outer Loop could expand to the west, north or southeast based on zoning Iines. Please note that the findings presented are preliminary and meant only for the purpose of discussing the effects of preliminary standards for node expansion. Also, it should be noted that the identified node expansions may not be in a desirable direction from the developers' and/or the City's points of view. r_ DEFINITIONS Compatible: Capable of existing adjacent to another land use without adversely affecting it. A commercial use would be compatible with an adjacent land use if it did not adversely affect it in terms of such factors as property value, view, noise, lighting, adequate light and air, safety, traffic, utilities, drainage, open space and livability or functioning of the adjacent use. Commercial Node: A concentrated area of commercial land use at a major intersection on an arterial street. Instead of commercial uses lining roads for many blocks, the commercial uses are grouped around a major intersection. Neighborhood Commercial Node: A commercial area that has the primary purpose of providing convenience goods and personal services to meet the daily needs of an immediate neighborhood. The node typically is 10 acres or less in size. Community Commercial Node: A commercial center with a Walmart-type store and/or a supermarket and other stores. The node serves a group of neighborhoods. Regional Commercial Node: A commercial center anchored by a full -line department store such as Dillards. Floor Area Ratio: The ratio of building area to parcel size. On a one acre site (43,560 square feet), a floor area ratio of 0.15 would allow a building area of 6,534 square feet. SUBDIVISION DATE -- ITEM NO. FILE NO. NAME: � ` to LOCATION: ko A -r.& Lx)E LJ=Q DEVELOPER ENGINEER NAME: J-1 r--9Lo-w gm�� _� lNe-oj STREET ADDRESS 1 09 Wf 21I— 12D, --3 CITY/STATE/ZIP V%Tl.g'OC.1° �,� �., Qi TELEPHONE NO. 22S (pIS g AREA AC NUMBER OF LOTS FT. NEW STREET -� ZONING -TZ PROPOSED USES PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS TRACT VARIANCES REQUESTED: r 3 1 2. 3. 4. 5. /Uj't.e� COMMERCIAL CENTER HIGHWAY 10 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND REZONING (REVISED PLAN) REASONS FOR DENIAL: Lack of consistency with Highway 10 Plan, which calls for office or residential (single family of multi- family). Development in a Transition zone without the protection of a PUD application. Incompatibility with contiguous established residential uses. Less than five percent (5%) of the 168 acres designated for commercial in the Plan has been developed to date. Additional speculative commercial is unwarranted. Precedent for additional commercial zoning across Highway 10 and along Taylor LooD Road, The area alo Highway 10 is differ t from th rea I ng Rocl r ek Parklx where s e dition co merc' I zo ing h be n ap ❑ved. The tghw y 1 are iffers i e fol owi ways: f� a. The -re -'are a isting built-up single famjjy ne r Highwa 10. , b. /6ue to the existence/of num roux n❑n-confor ing. uses, Tran ition 4cnes are eeded along Highway 10 f r Fyw 10 e _•-s _��. i'ghw,k.-I0 i sN a ns of a ss to S , a r r d ► I o'er', i s r - g u;r anti~e a�l nr su t pr'o c d ram-, REASONS FOR DENIAL: * 1. Lack of consistency with Highway 10 Plan, which calls for office or residential (single family or multi -family). * 2. Development in a Transition Zone without the protection of a PUD application. * 3. Incompatibility with contiguous established residential uses. . L ck of eq ate f �eri fo re a ti u 5 Rezoni to ye app by he rd 6. Not enough time s elasped to properly judge the effectiveness of the an. 7 Less than 5% of the 168 acres designated for commercial ((�� in he plan has been developed to date. Additional commercial is unwarranted. * 8. Add to Highway 0 traffic congestion, while a traffic capacity deficienc is projected. Precedent for additional commercial zoning across gK5way 10 and along Taylor Loop Road. x Inconsistencies with the Highway 10 Plan. r ME L( P 1�197 February 21, 1989 �=��5�-=-TQ-REZQNE_A_FARQE.E_QN_R��HWA�_TQ_&NQ_EAET TA�EQR_�QQ�_RnAD_F$QN_�2_TQ_Q� STAFF-REQQNMENDAT34N: Staff recommends denial of the C2 rezoning request for the following reasons: 1. Rezoning of the property would clearly violate and undermine the adopted Highway 10 Plan. 2. The proposed development would include two separate buildings on the front of the site for free-standing bank and fast-food businesses. This type of strip frontage development would set a pattern that would escalate over time into small -lot commercial development with numerous driveways, related traffic problems, and signs along Highway 10. 3. The proposed shopping center is not a land use authorized in a Transition Zone in the Highway 10 Plan. The shopping center is too intensive to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. 4. The proposed rezoning extends into a Transition Zone shown on the Highway 10 Plan, without providing for a planned unit development, thereby contravening the basic protection called for in the Transition Zones in the Highway 10 Plan. Even an office or multifamily development would have to be submitted as a PUD under the Transition Zone Guidelines in the Highway 10 Plan. With a PUD application, uses could be restricted and specific conditions attached to the development by by the Board of Directors. 5. Insufficient time has elapsed since the adoption of the Highway 10 Plan, thus rendering it impossible to make a fair and adequate assessment of the overall effectiveness of the Plan regarding commercial development in the Highway 10 corridor. The Plan represents the end result of numerous meetings, in-depth study, substantial citizen involvement, and consultant assistance. More time is needed to allow the Plan to work. 6. The proposed rezoning would allow commercial uses and structures on the site that are not compatible with contiguous established residential uses. Nearby residential uses, especially to the south and.east, will be adversely affected in terms of view, noise, and residential environment. 7. The rezoning would impact neighboring properties in such a way as to make them unsuitable for single-family uses and would provide a precedent for rezoning the single- family uses to a commercial zoning district. This additional commercial zoning would further contribute toward strip commercial development along Highway 10, and the undermining of other established residential uses. 8. Less than 5% of the 168 acres designated for commercial development in the plan has been developed to date. Additional commercial zoning is unwarranted at this time, given the abundance of already designated commercial acreage which is undeveloped. 9. A future traffic capacity deficiency is projected on Highway 10. The rezoning of the subject property would add to the projected traffic volume and could result in aggravation of future traffic problems.