Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0869-1 Staff AnalysisMay 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-869 NAME: Highway 10 Commercial Center Site Plan Review LOCATION: At the southwest corner of State Highway No. 10 and Taylor Loop Road. DEVELOPER: Vogel Enterprises by Robert Brown 11219 Hermitage Road Little Rock, AR 72205 225-6018 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson & Associates P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-5331 AREA: 10.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single family district PROPOSED USES: Mixed commercial use with a base use of retail food. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 40.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. None SITE PROPOSAL: This site consists of approximately ten acres and will have mixed uses of grocery, retail, restaurant and banking. The total proposed building area to be constructed is, plus or minus, 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 40 foot undisturbed area in the rear and a 20 foot area along the western boundary is planned. Slope transition areas are shown which will also be landscaped with turf and new trees. A 40 foot setback to building and parking is provided along the Highway 10 frontage. With careful grading design, the developer should be able to save May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) trees in this zone also. A minimum of 15 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 has been provided running north and south through the site illustrating the finished grade and the relationship to Westchester Subdivision to the south. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This proposal consists of a three element site plan which is a large commercial building with one large user and the potential for several smaller users. There are two out -parcels on the Highway 10 frontage which are indicated preliminarily as restaurant or bank usage. The proposal includes some screening and buffering along both the south and west sides of the property adjacent to existing zoned and used single family. The site has a secondary access by way of Taylor Loop Road on the east over a pipe -stem extension. The development proposes two points of ingress/egress on to State Highway 10; one at the northeast corner, the other slightly east of the northwest corner. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is surrounded by a mixture of both residential and some nonconforming activities. The property is bounded by an arterial street, being State Highway No. 10 on the north, and the pipe -stem to the east intersects Taylor Loop Road which is to be an arterial street. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Provide a deceleration lane along the property frontage with 150 foot transition on the West end. 2. Some changes in the parking and drives will be required in the restaurant area. This item should be coordinated with the Traffic Engineering staff. 3. Address Stormwater and Erosion Control requirements. 4. This project should be coordinated with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) 5. Traffic Engineer to review the specifics of the design of the access point and right-of-way alignment into Taylor Loop Road. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Lack of consistency with Highway 10 Plan. 2. Out parcels encouraging small -lot strip commercial development along Highway 10. 3. Development in a Transition Zone without the protection of a PUD application. 4. Incompatibility with contiguous established residential uses. 5. 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 approved by the Board of Directors. E. 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 do not overcome more fundamental problems with the proposed development. The proposed development clearly violates and under- mines the adopted Highway 10 Plan. Aspects of the site plan that present problems include the freestanding fast food and bank buildings. This type of strip frontage development would set a pattern that would escalate over time into small -lot strip commercial development with numerous driveways, related traffic problems, and signs along Highway 10. 16, 1989 D I ' ION ITEM i A (( nt i nued ) f o, the roposed uses and structures on the site are n . compat.ole with the contiguous established residential uses, and the buffering is not adequate. Nearby residential uses, especially to the south and east, will be adversely affected in terms of view, noise and residential environment. The lack of a PUD application contravenes the basic protections 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 the Board of Directors. Finally, it should be noted that this site plan violates the basic intent of zoning site plan review which is that "all development shall be designed in such a way to minimize any potential deleterious impact on ti : surrounding area" (Sec. 36-126(c). F. STAFF RECOU=NDATION: Denial of the site plan based on reasons contained it paragraphs two; three and four of the Staff Analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (February 9, 1989) The application was represented by Mir. David Jones and h,lr. Wes Lowder of Mehlberger Engineers. In the course of the presentation by the applicant, it was pointed out that the site plan submitted to the Staff initially has been modified. The site plan was changed to reflect along the south property line a 60 foot undisturbed buffer with a 30-35 foot wide driveway. On the west boundary of the project, the buffer zone was increased to some 40 feet, most of which will be retained undisturbed but due to the excavation requirements of the high -point of the property, there will be.a transition zone that will be replanted. This area is generally along the west side of the building area. The transition is smaller as you proceed north along the west property line. Mr. Lowder briefly discussed the layout and the type of treatment to be given the large buffer along State Highway 10 which will be some 40 feet in depth from the property line. A question by a Committee member as to conformance with the centerline setback 16, 1989 DIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) requirement of Transition Zone resulted in a response to the effect that he bank building will intrude; the restaurant structure will be setback sufficient that it will not be an issue. Questions were then raised as to the dumpster locations. Committee members questioned the placement of the dumpsters and the loading area behind the retail stores when the truck dock had been moved to the west side to provide separation. The discussion then moved to the comment of the Traffic Engineer. After briefly discussing this point, it was suggested by the Committee that Mr. Lowder get with the Traffic Engineer and resolve the questions raised. The discussion then moved to the area of whether the Planning Commission had authority to request or demand removal of the two freestanding buildings on the front of the property. The City Attorney was present but could not offer a specific response with this short notice. Planning Staff felt that there was not a provision in the ordinance that specifically dealt with this matter. However, the ordinance does provide language that deals with health, safety and welfare which may be basis enough for that kind of recommendation. The discussion then moved to the area of placement of signs and landscaping. Several Committee members felt that the Commission could, and should, deal with the design and placement of these two elements in that they were an integral part of this type of site plan review. Staff responded by stating that it felt the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances could not set aside or regulate in the area of signage and landscaping inasmuch as those are regulated by other ordinances. Planning Commission practice in the past has been to recommend approval of various plans with the minimums or maximums set out in the Sign and Landscape Ordinance being attached. The discussion continued for an extended period. The Committee then closed discussion. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. May 16, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. A (%r tinued) PLANNIPWa COMMIS. )N ACTION: (February 21, 1989) There were no objectors present. The applicant submitted a request for deferral in the appropriate tame 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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (May 4, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. David Jones. The Planning Staff presented a copy of the revised site plan and pointed out the various changes which were the movement of the bank building to a distance of some 63 feet from the Highway 10 right-of-way, the movement of the two signs on Highway 10 to the east and southward, and the decrease in the total floor area of the retail component of the building. The Committee discussed this with Staff and the applicant for a brief period of time. Mr. Jerry Gardner then introduced a copy of a site grading plan which reflected the amount of cut and fill to be accomplished in order to develop this site. Mr. Gardner cautioned the developer that the west boundary line, considering the grade change, would require close attention in the preparation of the slope. The applicant was then asked to comment on the rear buffer fence. Mr. Wes Lowder, representing the Mehlburger firm, commented that the fence along the rear retaining wall and the buffer line would be erected as previously offered and, in addition, the rear treatment of the building would be a green natural tone so as to blend with the foliage in the buffer area. There being no additional new information, the matter is forwarded on to the full Commission. y 16, 1989 bUbUIVI5lUN ITEM NO.: A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISS )N ACTION: (May 16, 1989) The applicant, David Jones, was present. There was one objector in attendance. Gary Greeson, Planning Director, addressed the Commission and said that a revised site plan had been submitted which decreased the area size from 10 acres to 5 acres with one Safeway store and parking. Mr. Greeson went on to say that Staff did not support the revised plan because it was incompatible with the single family subdivision to the south and the Highway 10 Plan recommends that the PUD process be utilized for sites within the transition zones. David Jones representing Vogel Realty, the developer, then spoke. Mr. Jones said the first plan was more intensive and the revised plan removed the out -parcels, eliminated 30,000 square feet of floor space and reduced the acreage from 10.1 acres to 5.9 acres. He also pointed out that the buffer area in the rear was increased from 60 feet to 80 feet, and then submitted copies of the revised plan. Mr. Jones continued by saying the plan was an excellent proposal with greater setbacks and it was time to find out what the City's policy was regarding Highway 10. Wes Lowder of the Mehlburger Engineering firm then discussed the revised plan and said the buffers have been increased and the store site was shifted to the east. Mr. Lowder also said that the new plan eliminated a substantial cut and that there was only one access point on Highway 10. He pointed out that there was adequate parking and the existing vegetation would be retained. Robert Brown, a landscape architect with the Mehlburger firm, said that he had met with Staff and incorporated all of the suggestions made by Staff. Mr. Brown made comments about the landscaping and other design considerations. He said the truck loading area was moved from the west to the east side of the proposed building. There was a long discussion about various issues and comparing the proposed site plan with the transition zone criteria. It was pointed out that the rezoning area would be reduced at the Board of Directors' meeting. Mr. Lowder said the new plan has much less impact and discussed water detention. Commissioner Nicholson then asked for Staff's response to the site plan. Mr. Greeson said it conflicted with the node expansion standards and the access point on East Taylor Road could have an impact on the residential 16, 1989 DUOUIVIaIWIN ITEM NO.: A (Continued) area. Mr. Jones spoke and reminded the Commission that the developer had incorporated all of Staff comments and said the Public Works Department endorsed the Taylor Loop Road access point. Comments were then offered by various individuals. Commissioner Collins asked about waiting for the Board of Directors to make a decision on the rezoning and questioned why a PCD was not submitted. Mr. Jones gave examples of other properties along Highway 10 and the Rock Creek Parkway that did not utilize the PUD format. Mr. Greeson responded by saying that the Highway 10 area has built up subdivisions and nonconforming uses. Melissa Carroll, a resident of the Westchester Subdivision, spoke in opposition to the site plan. She said it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and discussed the Board of Directors' resolution encouraging PUDs along Highway 10. Ms. Carroll then requested the Commission to deny the site plan. Ruth Beale, of the League of Women Voters, said a PUD was the best approach because it tied the use down and offered better protection for the neighborhood and City. She concluded by asking the Commission to instruct the applicant to submit a PUD. David Jones spoke again and said the site plan was the issue and the plan went far beyond the normal requirements for a commercial development. Mr. Jones then asked the Commission to review the site plan on its own merits. A motion was made to recommend approval of the revised site plan. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Rose Collins and Bill Rector). (Reasons for the Commissions approval were that the site plan was more than adequate and there were no reasons to disapprove it.)