Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1158 Staff AnalysisOctober 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1158 NAME: Chenal Place Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 12401 Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Leonard Boen by Joe White, Jr. Dickson Flake White-Daters and Assoc. P. O. Box 3546 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 13.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: N/A ZONING: C-2 Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: to 15 feet from 40 feet. A. PROPOSAL: Building setbacks on internal lots To preliminary plat this 13 acres utilizing a private street access for several of the lots. Some access would be taken from Atkins Street but not a through street. The developer identifies the potential users as C-3 type General Commercial. The 75 foot undisturbed buffer along the south line would not be intruded upon or affected by this plat. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently covered by dense trees and undergrowth. The land slopes from the south at Timber Ridge Subdivision to its low point behind the Chenal Buick Dealer. The maximum grade change is about 30 feet north to south. After site preparation, the 75 buffer will be well above this commercial project as will Timber Ridge Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None -received at this writing, the Parkway Place Association was notified by staff as will the abutting owners. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1158 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline of Atkins Road per the MSP. 2. Dedicate a 10' sidewalk/utility easement along Chenal Parkway. 3. Provide an additional lane extending to the beginning of the taper in front of the GMC dealership. 4. Provide an acceleration lane to the south per Chenal Parkway standards. 5. Remove the right-in/right-out driveways to comply with Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. The private street off of Chenal Parkway must be per Chenal Parkway standards. 7. The private street will not be allowed to extend to Atkins Road per City Ordinance. 8. Provide a cul-de-sac at the end of the private street for turnaround per city standards (45' radius, 55, radius for R.O.W.). 9. Show sidewalks on private street (both sides) and Chenal Parkway at back of right-of-way or easement. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to Atkins Road including sidewalk. 11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 12. A grading permit is required on this new development if it disturbs more than an acre. 13. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: Water main extension required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrants, on and off site. County Planning: No Comment - inside city limits CATA: No response. Nearest all day service at Chenal and Bowman at Wal-Mart. Planning Division: No issues, conforms to plan. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment. Does not apply. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1158 Issues: Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: Commercial platting conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff has thoroughly reviewed this plat and strongly feels that this platting action is not in keeping with the ordinance intent for C-2 Shopping Center District. Aside from the seven or eight plat deficiencies noted there is no site plan filed for a center that would support lots less than the five acre minimum. The private street planned and direct access of lots to Chenal are better suited to a less congested zoned site. We recommend denial of the plat as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The Planning Staff presented its report including Public Works and others. Mr. Joe White was present for the owner. A lengthy discussion was held with the design issues related to C-2 zoning being foremost. Planning Staff presented eight plat content issues for resolution: 1. Move the south 40 foot building line from OS zone. 2. Show all building lines as proposed. 3. Indicate pavement design, more than width. 4. Show sidewalks and driveway points, interior. 5. Owners names on residential lots. 6. Phase plan 7. Need Bill of Assurance. 8. How terminate private street, or will it extend to Atkins Road. Mr. White offered comments on the waivers requested and addressed the staff concerns about the minimum lot size. The Committee expressed concern that there was no site plan to support the small lot platting and it was pointed out that there was not one lot that met the 5 acres out of the 6 proposed. The Committee indicated to Mr. White that he needed to pursue these issues further prior to October 30. This matter is forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1158 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff's recommendation. Wood presented a brief commentary on the status of this plat as to the type of platting and its purpose. Wood expanded his comments to indicate a site plan has been submitted for review by staff and Commission. However, it was submitted after the Subdivision Committee. Wood stated that staff is requiring the developer to come forward and state the conditions under -which they could accept the plat and plan being approved by the Commission at this meeting with resolution between the staff and the developer at a later time. Mr. Joe White came forward representing the developer. Mr. White presented the application and provided for the Commission a location of the plat relative to neighboring uses in the area and adjacent streets. Mr. White stated that in presenting this plat there were two waivers that the developer wishes to request. One of these is the minimum lot size for C-2 lots and the other being the set back requirements for interior property lines for the lots. He then proceeded to offer a general overview of the site plan as it is proposed. He characterized this site plan and plat as being similar to Chenal Village. He stated that this was a shopping center type development both with some flexibility as to the ownerships. He stated this proposal would have been on the Consent Agenda if they had filed the site plan earlier and it had been fully reviewed. Chairman Lichty then asked if there were other persons present who wish to support this application. There being none he moved the discussion then to persons who may wish to oppose the application. At this point, Jeannie Menser identified herself as a resident of the immediate area of Valleywood Drive. The question she posed related to the 75 foot buffer and its continued protection undisturbed, how the 40 foot building setback would work and how separate lots and ownerships would effect the residential relationship. Mr. Lawson, of the Staff, responded to the undisturbed buffer question by stating it meant that the trees cannot be removed or excavation occur within that 75 feet. He expanded his comment by saying that it had been previously agreed upon with the neighborhood in exchange for rezoning the property from Office to Commercial. Richard Wood, of the Staff, indicated there were some concerns that have not been fully explored or discussed at all. The Chairman asked the staff if they wish to discuss these at this point. The response was yes. Wood proceeded to identify these several points of concern. The first and one of the primary being that access to the several lots has not been established on 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 the plat. He stated that landscaping and the signage have not been discussed or resolved in any respect. The height of the buildings was also pointed out as a concern. The last item was that there is no identification of the user of these buildings and whether or not the parking requirement that is reflected on the drawing would support the particular use that might be proposed. At this point, Jim Lawson suggested to the Commission they might want to approve this plat with a condition that all of these various items be resolved between staff and the developer. There were numerous items identified by both Lawson and Wood that would need to be made a condition of the motion and the approval so as to adequately cover the approval and the establishment of a site plan. At this point, Mr. Joe White returned and stated he and his applicant were not at the meeting today to ask for a specific approval of the site plan that has been presented. The staff injected a thought they perhaps the developer had misunderstood the ordinance. The ordinance specifically requires a site plan to be approved in order to create lots where less than the ordinance minimum in area. Mr. White stated again for the record they were not asking for the site plan to be approved today. Simply the establishment of the lots with the less than minimum size. wood pointed again that staff's original objection was that this plat created entirely substandard lots without the submittal of a site plan. This is required by the Zoning Ordinance in order to create small outparcel lots less than the ordinance standards. Commissioner Rahman then asked a question saying is it okay to have less than five acre lots. He stated that he felt most of the lots were acceptable and he had reviewed the site plan. There was then a mixed discussion between Mr. White and several commissioners involving access and several other issues. The Chairman then asked David Scherer, of Public Works, to come forward and respond to the question of access to the lots. Mr. Scherer said the development did provide for a Chenal Parkway standard access, an intersection with a median break to serve the lots and that lot 3 indicated a right -in, right -out type of driveway. He stated that with the appropriate deceleration and acceleration lanes and spacing of 300 feet from the primary median cut it would be acceptable. The city would not allow for an additional curb cut on the lot. Commissioner Daniel was recognized for comment. He made a lengthy statement about how this plan had changed since he had originally observed it and with the number of issues that has been raised perhaps this item should be deferred for six weeks. 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 Jim Lawson inserted a comment that concerning what the Commission might want to do if they felt these lots were of sufficient size. He stated they might want to recognize the plat and recommend its approval with the variances that are requested going on to the City Board to establish the lots at the current sizes. After the approval of the variance by the City Board, the developer would come in with each of the lots as they are sold and developed. The staff and the Commission would deal with each lot as it is submitted for a building permit. He stated, "If the Commission was comfortable with these lots, then we move on with it and take the variances to the City Board." Commissioner Putnam was recognized for a comment. He asked if Mr. White was comfortable with what Mr. Lawson had just offered. Mr. White stated that he was. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson what had transpired in the last several days that has changed the staff recommendation from denial to approval of this proposal. Mr. Lawson stated there is more information available at this time. He said, "If the Commission felt it could be developed into small lots and this is appropriate and we need to proceed with the plan. We can deal with it in the site plan as the lots come up for development." Commissioner Adcock was recognized and she posed a question to Jim Lawson as to why if the ordinance requires 5 acres minimum lot size, then why does staff support that. He stated that he did not think the 5 acre minimum lot size is necessarily reasonable. Commissioner Adcock offered several concerns with her primary one being that different people should not be treated differently with respect to the minimum lot size of 5 acres. At this point, Commissioner Hawn addressed the person who had previously asked for assurances about the 75 foot buffer. In a brief discussion, it was determined that she did receive the answer that she sought. Mr. Joe White confirmed also that the building setback line for any structures built on the lots abutting the buffer would be 75 feet. Commissioner Rahman offered a comment that he did not see where there was a particular problem with the 5 acres even though the ordinance specifically request such in this particular case. He felt like the arrangement of these lots was almost like a condo arrangement for commercial. As far as the development, it seems to meet all of the other basis of ordinance. Jim Lawson then offered an extensive comment and background on C-2 and C-3 as it related to this property. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question as how do you get to lot 3 in this development. The answer to her question was that Public Works had already reviewed and accepted the driveway apron that has been represented on the site plan and plat. C October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 A discussion occurred at this point involving several persons off the record. It is garbled on the tape and not decipherable due to them not speaking into the microphone. At this point Commissioner Lichty offered a lengthy commentary closing with a thought that this should be deferred. Mr. White came back and stated that at this point perhaps a deferral would be in order. Commissioner Berry injected a thought that perhaps the 5 acre minimum is outdated and we need to change the ordinance. The Chairman called for a motion. Commissioner Hawn stated that he would offer one. The motion being that this proposal be deferred to December 18, 1997 Subdivision Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 6