Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0964 Staff Analysisjanuary 26, 1993 ITEM NO.: $ NAME: Wal-Mart - Subdivision Site Plan LOCATION: SW corner of Bowman Road at Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: WAL-MART STORES PAT MCGETRICK Bentonville, AR MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11,225 Huron Lane Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 41.58 acres ZONING: C-3 with Conditions PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES RE ❑ESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: PROPOSED USES: A Wal-Mart Store and Sam's Club None S-964 This application is a request to develop this site, generally in the manner approved on the occasion of the rezoning of the property to C-3. That rezoning consisted of an application for one large lot and several smaller outparcels with significant conditions set forth in the ordinance by the Board of Directors. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: The request as placed before the Commission is a site plan review. This review will produce a subdivision plat which will produce two large lots, one for Sam's and the other for Wal-Mart Store plus the outparcels. The final plat would be a staff matter following the Planning Commission's action on the site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This site is generally undisturbed and basically in the same form as it existed on the date it was rezoned. It is heavily covered by timber and natural undergrowth. Bowman Road January 26, 1993 �UHDIVISION 'EM NO.: S (Cont-) FILE NO.: s-964 remains a two lane county road standard with open ditch section. The Chenal Parkway is constructed to the Master Street Plan standards. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that all previous requirements on boundary streets shall pertain to this application as required on the rezoning. These may be modified by results of a study to be performed by Ernie Peters, Traffic Engineer. This study is to be presented to Public Works. Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. The Little Rock Water Works reports that a pro rata front footage charge of $12.00 per front foot applies along Bowman Road. Relocation of water facilities in Bowman may be required in conjunction with the street construction. An on - site fire service system with lines and hydrant locations will be required. Waste Water Utility reports that there are sewer mains located in the area. Contact should be made with Waste Water before continuing with construction or developing final construction plans. D. ZSSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The staff's review has produced several changes in the plan which we recommend. At least one of these is a plan change which we feel is mandated by the approval of the original site plan and rezoning this being the outparcel at the northwest corner. The original agreement on the site plan approval reflected this as a detention area with no outparcel or building site. The staff requires a detail landscape plan and detailing of the treatment to protect the buffer strip along the west property line adjacent to the single family. A grading plan should be presented. A phasing plan is required for the platting of the property if the lots are to be separately developed and filed for record. A final plat should be produced with the lots required for the first phase for filing. Building treatments should be presented on the rear elevation. E. ANALYSIS• The staff's review of this application results in a comfort level with the proposal in general. The application adheres to the standards which were set forth in the original (January 26, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: $(Cont. FILE NO.: S-964 rezoning ordinance at the time this property was classified as C-3. All of the standards set forth in that ordinance must be adhered to. A specific interest in this site plan, much like the original plan filed, is the buffer zoned along the west residential area. There are some specific requirements as to the placement of the fence along that buffer area and the type of treatment for the area to be excavated and modified in the construction process. As above, we would point out that all of the conditions as to roadway improvements, right-of-way dedication and access, plus signage for all of the various parcels remain. It is understood that the Public works Department is in negotiations with the developer to determine the time and method for the total reconstruction of Bowman Road for a specified distance. This construction is to take place coincident with the development of the Wal-Mart and Sam's Stores. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff's recommendation is approval of the site plan subject to and conformance with all of the previous conditions set forth in the reclassification ordinance and as pointed out in the several paragraphs above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 7, 1993) The applicant was present. There was a general discussion of the various development factors involved in this site plan. There were no new significant issues pointed out. Except, that the design of this project will change the location of the detention ponding area. One of the sites will be moved from the former northwest corner of the site to a place near the property corner of Bowman Road. There will be changes in the south and southeast corner to accommodate a different drainage pattern and detention. The applicant pointed out that the plat to be filed to divide the two principal parcels will place the property line in a way to locate the parking spaces as required by ordinance on the two separate lots. A brief discussion was held concerning the Bowman Road improvements. Possible coordination of this construction with the project proposed by Mr. Moses on the east side of Bowman at Hermitage. Because that project has been requested for deferral to March 9, there were no answers as to the timing for the potential for involvement by the developer. 3 /�anuary 26, 1993 r SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• $ (Cont.) FILE NO 5-964 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 26, 1993) The Chairman asked staff to make its recommendation on this application. Richard Wood of staff presented to the Commission a list extracted from the previous ordinance reclassifying this property, outlining the various conditions placed in the ordinance by the City Board and one modification which was highlighted. He pointed out that one modification was the increase in height on the west property line fence from 6 feet to 8 feet. Richard Wood of staff offered a brief comment on the staffs recommendation. He noted that this was a subdivision site plan at this time. However, it would generate a multi lot subdivision plat at some point. He noted that the items included in the list which were passed out to the Commission are the conditions of development on this site. Wood pointed out that the one modification of this list is a result of a neighborhood meeting and an agreement between the developer and the residents of the area immediately to the west. Jim Lawson of the staff then inserted a comment that the developers have accepted and will adhere to the standards of the proposed Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Overlay District. He stated that the Board of Directors have not adopted these standards by ordinance at this time, but we have had meetings with Wal-Mart and they have accepted those standards as part of their design criteria. The Chairman then asked if there was a representative present for this application. Mr. Todd Butler was present. He identified himself as being with CEI Engineers of Bentonville, Arkansas. Mr. Butler reported that on Tuesday of last week he held a meeting with the neighborhood to gain their insight and determine their position relative to his proposal. He indicated that he had met with the lot of the neighbors along the Bowman Road side of the project. He indicated the neighborhood meeting was productive, and most of the neighbors were well informed. Mr. Butler indicated that one of the items discussed at the neighborhood meeting was the neighbors' concern for expanding or widening the buffer zone from 50 feet to perhaps as wide as a 100 feet along the west property boundary. Mr. Butler indicated he had retained the services of an urban forester, and that a site review had been made with this person to determine the extent of the visual barrier provided by the 50 foot versus 100 foot strip along the west line. He indicated that visually there was very little to be gained by expanding the width of that strip. He pointed out that the neighbors had asked for and agreed to the location of the fence along the east boundary of the 50 foot strip so as to leave the buffer zone on the neighbors' side. He also agreed to increase the height of the fence from 6 to 8 feet. Mr. Butler pointed out that the approval previously 4 1 1 January 26, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 8 (Cont.) FILE NO 5-964 presented to the Planning Commission and the City Board contained over 300,000 square feet of floor space, and the project now before the Commission consisted of about 100,000 less. Mr. Butler indicated that Mr. Ernie Peters had been retained as the Traffic Engineer to study this proposal. Mr. Peters had completed that study and it reflects that this project will generate less traffic than the original, larger project approved. He closed his remarks by stating that nobody wants this kind of project in their backyard, but in this situation they were working with this one to produce the best possible product for the neighbors. Chairman Walker then asked staff to described the circumstances of the plat issue that was identified earlier in the staff presentation. Richard Wood of staff pointed out that this site plan will generate a multi lot plat to reflect lot lines, especially in regard to the Sam's and Wal-Mart principal structures. There is a mortgage relationship which will require that these buildings be on separate lots. There are several outparcels along Bowman Road, approved in the original plan which will require lot creation. Chairman Walker asked if the Commission at this time were addressing the landscape features relative to those outparcel lots. Wood responded by saying that is set in place by agreement which is in the ordinance, and we are dealing with that. The Chairman then asked if those standards would meet the overlay requirement. Staff responded by saying, "yes." Chairman Walker then indicated a tract on the plan which was not outlined with the boundary of this project. He asked for someone to identify the status of this parcel, especially with respect to the original approved zoning and plan. Mr. Butler stated that what is in the heavy line on this drawing was all that Wal-Mart owns at this time. The Chairman asked if this site, the outparcel, was covered by the agreement in the ordinance. The response was, "yes". The same buffers and landscaping standards will be applied. Jim Lawson pointed out that this may or may not be part of the Wal-Mart development. However, Lawson indicated that he had asked that the site plan illustrate that outparcel as off-street parking should Wal-Mart acquire the site for additional parking. Richard Wood indicated that the parcel will have to be included in the subdivision plat. The Chairman then asked for objectors to come forward and present their comments. The first being, Tracy Jones, a resident on Timber Hill Drive in a subdivision lying to the west. Her primary concerns were that the conditions of the approval for development be specifically enumerated and placed on paper as opposed to verbal 5 January 26, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.1 FILE NO.: S--964 promises. She felt that the lighting standards and the parking lot for this development should not be taller than 30 feet, and shine into their neighborhood. She indicated that she understood the lighting to the rear of the buildings would not be greater than 4 feet in height. Another concern was there be no loading at night behind the structures. She stated that her concern included the operation of forklift trucks and refrigeration units behind the building after hours. She stated that for purposes of the identified landscape strips she wanted to know exactly what was going to be placed there, not a simple statement that would be trees and bushes. She reduced her statement to a concern that all of this be reduced to writing in order to be monitored. Her comments then moved to the Chenal Parkway and its traffic circumstance, with respect to density and traffic flows. She stated that the neighborhood was concerned about the possibility of the creation of another signalized intersection on Chenal Parkway, closer to their residences and the noise it would create. She pointed out that when they moved into the neighborhood the plan for this area was residential. It has now been made commercial. She reminded the Commission that the Chenal Parkway had been promised not be another Rodney Parham. She closed her remarks by stating they simply want those things done which have been promised and are in writing, if possible the 50 feet be widened. Chairman Walker then stated he had been following the presentation of the objectors. He noticed in the list of conditions perhaps there was only one, being the afterhour loading behind the building. Mr. Butler returned to the lectern and stated, that, in this area of the state, there are none of their stores which load after hours. This is not an activity expected on this premises. He stated that he was the engineer of the project and could not make a final assurance that there would never be loading back there. However, this was his understanding and was not in this area of Wal-Mart's no chain store operates with nighttime loading. Mr. Chuck Mitchell, also representing the engineering firm of CEI Engineering, was present. The Chairman asked him to come forward and address the same subject on loading. He stated that he is the one of the company's engineers and stated what he had heard, was the same as Mr. Butler had related. A brief discussion followed involving the objectors, the commissioners and staff concerning the afterhours loading and how that might be dealt, also, the possibility of restraint of that activity. Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's Office inserted a 6 fr f January 26, 1993 t SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 8(Cont. FILE N S- 64 comment at this point. He commented by saying this was a subdivision site plan review, and perhaps placing such a restriction as the hours of operation was inappropriate. He stated that this was something which should have been attached to the rezoning. He felt that it was not a legitimate concern for the Planning Commission at this site plan review. Chairman Walker then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to offer objection or concern about this project. Commissioner Oleson then asked, "With the outparcel shown and the reduction of 100,000± square feet of floor space, if it meant this is the end product or is there a potential for the developer to come back at some point and ask for an expansion of the development?" Mr. Butler indicated that the application which was before the Commission involved all they had intended to develop at this time. He could not specifically respond to future development. Commissioner Oleson then offered a concern that this type of circumstance occur frequently, and this is the reason neighbors appear at meetings with the kind of concerns offered by these objectors. Richard Wood offered that development is never static and there are no absolutes, things can and do change over time. Commissioner Oleson then moved her questions to the subject of outparcels. She asked Mr. Butler how many he is requesting at this time when the approval shows five along Bowman Road? Mr. Butler indicated that this plan reflects three and this is what they are asking for at this time. This is a preliminary state at this time and he could not commit further. Commissioner Willis asked, "Where are we on this if it has been indicated for the ordinance to have five, and is reflecting three on this plan? What kind of commitment does this make?" Chairman Walker answered by saying, "What is important in this application is not the particular lot lines, but we have an internal circulation which is more critical to the issue, unless there is common landscaping of other features tying the properties together." Chairman Walker announced that he had a motion for approval of the Wal-Mart site plan. A vote on the motion produced 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 2 abstentions. The action of the Commission approved the site plan review with the incorporation within the ordinance conditions, the modification to 8 feet on the fence and acceptance by the developer to adhere to the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway Design Overlay District. 7