Loading...
pc_12 19 2002subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD DECEMBER 19,2002 4:00 P,M. I.Roti Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine (9)In number. Ill.Members Present:Judith Faust Bob Lowry Robert Stebbins Norm Floyd Jerry Mayer Bill Rector Fred Allen,Jr. Gary Langlais Qbray Nunnley,Jr. Members Absent:Mizan Rahrnan Rohn Muse City Attorney:Stephen Giles III.Approval of the Minutes of the October 31,2tI02 Meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission.The Minutes were approved as presented. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA DECEMBER 19,2002 4:00 P.M. I.DEFERRED ITEMS: A.LU02-18-01 A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family to Multi-family located northeast of the intersection of Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive A.1 American Dream Builders Short-form PD-R (Z-7211),located Northeast of the intersection of Nix Road and Laurel Oaks Drive B.LU02-10-04 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District located in the 2700 Block of Walker Street changing from Single Family to Multi-family. B.1 Griffin Short-form PD-R (Z-7282),located at 2701 —2723 Walker Street C.LU10-02-06 —A Land Use Plan Amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Office to Commercial located in the 2000 Block of South University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue. C.1.Yelenich Long-form PCD (Z-4644-B)—Located in the 2000 Block of South University Avenue on the West side of South University Avenue. D.Threadgill Short-form PD-R (Z-7281),located at 12800 Arthur Lane. E.Street Right-of-Way Abandonment G-23-317;described as approximately 25 feet of the portion of Wingate Drive that exists onto West Markham Street. F.Stagecoach Village Revised PCD (Z-6178-F)-Located on the Southeast corner of Stagecoach Road and Stagecoach Village Drive. II.NEW ITEMS: 1.Brimer Subdivision Replat (S-285-A),located at Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer Street. 2.Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1363),located at 9400 Stagecoach Road. 3.Lawson Road Mini-storage Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1364),located at 15700 Lawson Road. II.NEW ITEMS:(Cont.) 4.Lot 1 Section "A"Wildwood Subdivision Short-form POD (Z-7325),located on the southeast corner of Cantrell Road and South Katillus Road. 5.Lieblong Short-form PD-0 (Z-7326),located at 12900 Crystal Valley Road. 6.Shear Magic Short-form PCD (Z-7327),located at 1911 West 2"Street. 7.EmbraSuen,LLC Short-form PD-R (Z-7328),located on the northwest corner of Woodlawn and Taylor Streets. 8.The Villages at Rahling Road Revised Long-form PCD (Z-6232-E),located on Rahling Circle. December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:LU02-18-01 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Ellis Mountain Planning District Location:North of the intersection of Nix Road and Coleman Street. ~Re uest:Single Family to Multi-Family Source:Rebecca Chandler,American Dream Investments PROPOSAL I REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Ellis Mountain Planning District from Single Family to Multi-Family.The Multi-Family category accommodates residential development of (10) to thirty-six (36)dwelling units per acre.This application results from the applicant's wishes to build four duplexes. Prompted by this Land Use Plan Amendment request,the Planning Staff expanded the area of review southward from the applicant's property toward Kanis Road to the existing Low Density Residential. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The applicant's property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 0.64+acres in size.In the expanded area,zoned R-2,a house sits immediately to the south of the applicant's property while the remainder of the expanded area is vacant.The R-2 property to the north and east is vacant land zoned R-2.The property to the south consists of houses on large lots zoned R-2.The property to the west is developed with single-family houses and is zoned R-2 Single Family.A church located on a lot to the southwest of the applicant's property is zoned R-2 Single Family with a Conditional Use Permit for a church and is the subject of another item on this agenda. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On July 3,2001 changes were made from Low Density Residential,Neighborhood Commercial,and Mixed Office Commercial in an area bounded by Bowman Road, Panther Creek,Cooper Orbit Road,and Brodie Creek starting about '/4 of a mile southwest of the applicant's property. On February 15,2000 a change was made form Single Family to Low Density Residential at Westglen Drive and Gamble Road about N of a mile southeast of the application area. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01 On March 2,1999 multiple changes were made from Transition,Neighborhood Commercial,Multi-Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,and Mixed Office Commercial to Single Family,Low Density Residential,Suburban Office,Mixed Office Commercial,Park/Open Space,Service Trades District,Commercial,and Community Shopping along Kanis Road within a 1 mile radius of the property in question. The applicant's property,as well as all of the rest of the expanded area,is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.The properties to the west,north,and east are shown as Single Family,while the property to the south is shown as Low Density Residential. MASTER STREET PLAN: Nix Road is a Residential Street with open drainage and is not built to standard.Laurel Oaks Drive is a Residential Street built to standard.Half street improvements may be required to upgrade Nix Road to a Residential Street through the installation of curb and gutters.Two platted undeveloped street right-of-ways are adjacent to the applicant's property.Coleman Street and Farris streets are un-built residential streets.Both streets will be subject to improvements unless the right-of-way for either,or both,streets is abandoned.There are no bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan of 2001 shows that the applicant's property is located in a service deficit area.Park facilities would need to be developed to provide adequate park and open space areas to serve the area covered by this amendment and surrounding areas. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential Development goal listed an action statement of requiring that city staff ensure both single-family and multi-family uses in newly developing areas, while allowing the multi-family to act as a buffer between single family and office.The Office and Commercial Development Goal contained an objective of encouraging the adoption of a plan for Kanis Road.An action statement recommended the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to insure that new developments would be compatible 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01 with the existing neighborhood.The Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan is due for an update study. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property lies in an area that is characterized by mostly vacant property located between Nix and Gamble Road.A few houses are located on Nix Road.Most of the developed property is located in the Parkway Place subdivision and is not oriented towards Nix Road. The current land use pattern in the area places the more intense land uses at the edge of the neighborhood along Kanis Road,W.Markham Street,and Chenal Parkway.The higher density residential areas serve as a buffer between the Single Family and non- residential uses to the north.Most of the Multi-family area is built out to capacity at the Shadow Lakes Apartments.In contrast,most of the land shown as Low-Density Residential remains vacant.Extra land shown as Multi-family could allow for the development of more housing at Multi-Family densities at the expense of land shown as Single Family.This amendment would not effect the availability of exiting Low-Density Residential land,nor would it increase the availability of land for housing that is not Multi-Family or Single Family.However,even though this amendment would reduce the amount of land shown as Single Family,there will still be land shown as Single Family available for development north of the applicant's property and east of Gamble Road. Approval of Multi-Family will place a small area,less than two-thirds of an acre,of Multi- Family in a location that is surrounded by a large area shown as Single Family. The applicant's property is also located in the area that was covered by the Kanis Road Study.The current land uses along Kanis Road are the result of recommendations made in that study.The current pattern of development places the more intense Multi- Family and Low Density Residential uses at locations accessed by Collector and Minor Arterial Streets.This application would.,introduce an area shown as Multi-Family accessed solely from a Residential Street.Depending on the resolution of right-of-way abandonment issues,this application could introduce an area shown as Multi-Family accessed solely from one Residential Street.Regardless of the outcome of the abandonment issues,all of the access to the property will be from Residential streets. The issues concerning the construction,or abandonment,of Coleman and Farris Streets could also effect not only the development of the applicant's property,but also the future development of neighboring properties.If future development takes place on property located between Nix and Gamble Roads,adequate access would need to be provided to those properties.Coleman and Farris streets could provide access to future developments,or else future streets will need to be developed to provide access to potential developments. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Gibraltar/Pt. West/Timber Ridge,Parkway Place Property Owners Association,and Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association.Staff has received two comments from area residents.None are in support,both were neutral. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes that the change to Multi-Family is not appropriate at this time.With an impending review of a City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan,this change would be premature. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 9,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the June 20,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 20,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the August 8,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion to approve the consent agenda was made and approved.The item was deferred with a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes,3 absent,and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(AUGUST 8,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the September 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.That motion to waive the bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 7 ayes,2 noes,1 absent,and 1 open position.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes,1 absent,and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002) Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the Commission.Donna James made a presentation of item A.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-18-01 item A.See item A.1 for a complete discussion concerning the Short Form Planned Development -Residential. Ms.Rebecca Chandler,applicant,made a presentation to the Commission concerning census information about the area,prices of current homes in the market,projected costs of the units she wishes to develop,availability of housing in the area,and shortages of townhouse/condos in the area.She continued to state that she was trying to promote an alternate living ownership arrangement for less money than single family detached housing. Commissioner Rahman stated that he was uncomfortable with the abandonments on both the Land Use Plan and the zoning item. A motion was made to defer both items 16 and 16.1 until the time in which the abandonments are heard.The item was deferred with a vote of 10 ayes,1 no,and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and passed with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent, 5 December 19,2002 ITEM NO A.1 FILE NO.:Z-7211 NAME:American Dream Builder's Short-form PD-R LOCATION:Northeast of the intersection of Laurel Oaks Drive and Nix Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: American Dream Builders,Inc.Carter Burgess 18 Misty Court 10809 Executive Center Little Rock,AR Suite 204 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:0.64 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:4 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R (6-units detached single-family housing) PROPOSED USE:Detached Single-family housing (6.25 units per acre) VARIANCESAWAIVERS REQUESTED:Waiver of street improvements to Farris Street and to Coleman Street. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to place six units of detached housing on this four lot site.The applicant proposes the units to be two story units and each will have an attached garage.The future sale of these units will be under a horizontal property regime.Each of the units will contain between 1400 —1526 square feet and be 3 bedroom,2.5 baths and a two car garage. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211 The applicant is proposing 5-foot set backs between the buildings and the side property lines and a 20-foot access and utility easement to serve the development as a single access from Nix Road. The applicant proposes to replat the four lots into one lot as a part of this process.Also included in the application is the request for right-of-way abandonment of the alley right-of-way between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 9 and 10. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site with a slope falling to the south and west. Nix Road is an unimproved narrow roadway with deep ditches.The site is currently zoned R-2 as is the majority of the property around the site. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the proposed development.The Parkway Place Property Owners Association and the Gibralter/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations along with all residents within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified,and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1.Nix Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2.Unless closure of the platted but undeveloped Coleman and Farris Streets is accomplished,dedication of right-of-way and construction to Master Street Plan standards will be required. 3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan), Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. 4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5.Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 6.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-7211 E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer available and not adversely affected. AP 8 L:No comment received. ARKLA:Need a better copy of the plat showing cross streets. Southwestern Bell:Easements on both sides of the drive are needed to provide telephone access.Contact Southwestern Bell at 373-5112 for additional details. Water:A water main extension may be required to serve this property.An acreage charge of $600 per acre currently applies to this property in addition to normal charges in this area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. ~Fire De artmenk Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. ~Count Plannin:No comment received. CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: ~Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land Use Plan indicates Single Family for the site.The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development to build six units to be sold under a horizontal property regime.A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Multi Family is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-18-01). Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential Development goal is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density development in the area.Action Statements include using multi-family housing to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the density and square footage of multi-family developments. ~kandsca e:The plan suhmilted does not show for the required nine lgl foot wide land use buffers to the north and east.A six (6)foot high opaque screen is required to the north and east unless there are to be no windows or doors (except those required by the city)on the north and east sides. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211 BBuildini Codes:No comment received. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002) The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had tried unsuccessfully to close the roadways adjacent to the site and now wished to pursue the item with only the closure of the alleyway between the lots.Staff stated the applicant should contact the utility companies and Public Works to obtain comments with regard to the alley closure.Staff stated they would work with the applicant to resolve the technical issues prior to the Commission meeting. There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. I L ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff.The applicant has included a six (6)foot wooden fence on the north and south property lines and has indicated a fence could be placed along the undeveloped Farris Street if necessary.The applicant has indicated a five (5)foot side yard setback along the north and south property lines.The typical required land use buffer is nine (9)feet.Staff is not supportive of the requested reduction in landscaped area.The development abuts single-family to the north and the minimum typical buffer should be put in place.In addition,with the dedication of right-of-way on the south side of the development (Coleman Street) there will be a zero side yard setback. The applicant has indicated there will not be any signage as a part of the development.The applicant has also indicted the development will be constructed in one phase.As stated in the proposal section the applicant proposes the units to be for sale through a horizontal property regime and ownership and maintenance of common areas will be handled through a property owners association. The applicant is requesting a waiver of street improvements to Coleman Street and to Farffis Street.The roadways have not developed in the area and the applicant feels the construction of the streets is unjustified at this time. Staff is not supportive of the development as proposed.The density of the development is not consistent with the development pattern in the area.With the placement of this number of units on these four 50-foot by 150-foot lots there is not sufficient room for side yard setbacks.Should the applicant be unsuccessful in the abandonment of the alleyway the development will not work. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211 Similar densities have developed in the area but each of these were closer to West Markham Street,shown for multi-family on the Future Land Use Plan and were adjacent to existing multi-family developments.Staff feels the neighborhood would be better served if the lots developed as single-family units. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed Planned Residential Development as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002) Ms.Rebecca Chandler was present representing the application.There were no objectors present.The land use plan amendment and the rezoning were discussed simultaneously.Staff presented each item with a recommendation of denial for each. Commissioner Berry questioned the number of units,which could be constructed on the site today.Staff stated four (4)and increase of four (4)units since the proposal included eight (8)units.Staff stated the applicant was requesting a waiver of right-of- way dedication and street construction to Coleman Street and Farris Street.Staff stated the applicant was also requesting the roadway be abandoned and the alleyway within the development be abandoned. Ms.Chandler stated her occupation was a real estate appraiser.She stated recently she had determined there was a shortage of homes in the $85,000 to $95,000 range. She stated this became an issue when looking for a home for her widowed mother.She stated most of the homes in the area were $100,000+.Ms.Chandler gave the Commission statistical data from the Census related to homeownership,occupancy, ages and number of units in the area.She also gave the Commission a MSL listing of data indicating the market and the pertinent data related to home sales. Commissioner Berry questioned if the design was directly tied to the closure of the streets.Ms.Chandler stated she had reduced the size of the development to comply with the requirements of staff.Staff stated once the dedication of the right-of-way there would be a zero side yard setback on Coleman Street.Commissioner Berry stated the project was hinged on the closing of the street. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the street abandonment and the impact of abandonment of streets in areas,which had not yet developed. Staff stated the area was a very old plat and they had not heard from all the property owners within the affected area. Commissioner Berry made a motion to defer the item until the street issues could be resolved.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO '.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7211 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had not resolved the street issues.Staff stated they were requesting this item be deferred to allow the applicant additional time to resolve the street and alleyway abandonment.Staff stated the application would be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the application was originally filed for the May 9,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the application was deferred to the to the June 20,2002 Public Hearing and then to the August 8,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated the applicant was present at the September 19,2002 Public Hearing and the Commission deferred the item after it was determined the design of the development was directly tied to the street closures being proposed as a part of the development.The item was deferred until the applicant could resolve the street issue.Staff stated the applicant had contacted them and was agreeable for the application to be withdrawn until a new development plan could be conceived.Staff stated at which time the applicant would refile all related applications for the proposed development. Staff presented a recommendation of withdrawal without prejudice to allow the applicant time to resolve the street closure issue and then file the Land Use Plan amendment,the rezoning request and the Street Right-of-Way abandonment applications. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 6 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:LU02-10-04 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District Location:2701 -2723 Walker St. Receuest:Single Family to Multi-Family Source:Christopher Lee Griffin PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Land Use Plan amendment in the Boyle Park Planning District from Single Family to Multi-Family.Multi-Family accommodates residential development of ten (10)to thirty- six (36)dwelling units per acre.The applicant wishes to develop the property for an eighteen-unit apartment complex. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is vacant land currently zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately .75+acres in size.All of the surrounding property is land zoned R-2 Single Family developed with single-family housing. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On September 4,2001 a change was made from Park/Open Space to Multi-family at24'"St.and Junior Deputy Rd.about 9/10 of a mile west of the area in question.This change was made to allow for the expansion of a retirement community. On March 6,2001 a change was made from Single Familyto Office at 1911 John Barrow Rd.about a "/~mile northwest of the applicant's property.This change was made to allow the expansion of a proposed medical office development. On September 19,2000 a change was made from Single Family to Office at 2109 John Barrow Rd.about 1/3 of a mile northwest of the application area.This change was made to allow the development of medical offices. The applicant's property,as well as all of the surrounding property,is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan. MASTER STREET'LAN: Walker Street north of W.28'"Street is a Residential Street with open drainage.Curbs and gutters would need to be installed to bring Walker Street up to Standard Residential Street standards.Both W.28'"Street and Walker Street south of W,28'"Street are shown as collector streets.W.28'"Street is built to standard while Walker Street south December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04 of 28'"is not.There area no Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: The applicant's property is located five block west of Boyle Park,which is shown in the 2001 Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a large urban park of 243 acres featuring multiple forms of active,and passive recreation facilities. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no City of Little Rock recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization goal of improving the overall appearance and safety of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units,which is supported by an action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be compatible with existing architecture in the area. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property is located in a established residential neighborhood.The houses to the north and east are relatively new and built on streets with curb and gutter. The remaining houses are older and built on streets needing improvements to conform to Master Street Plan standards.AII of the combined surrounding property firmly establishes the residential character of the neighborhood.Although the applicant's property is located on a street corner at the intersection of two Collector Streets,a change to Multi-family would substantially increase the density of residential units of the neighborhood and introduce a small area that would be incompatible with the neighborhood.Land shown as Multi-family could increase the variety of housing types available in the neighborhood and allow for the development of more housing units in the neighborhood at higher densities but would do so at the expense of land shown as Single Family. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College Terrace Neighborhood Association,Leander Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-04 Neighborhood Association,University Park Neighborhood Association,and Westwood Neighborhood Association.Staff has not received any comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Multi-family would introduce an isolated use that is incompatible with neighboring uses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the October 31,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to waive the by-laws for a five-day notice to defer prior to the Planning Commission meeting.That motion to waive the bylaws was made and approved with a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes,and 0 absent.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes,and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the December 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and was approved with a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The item was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.A motion was made to approve the consent agenda and passed with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. 3 December 19,2002 ITEM NO B 1 FILE NO.:Z-7282 NAME:Griffin Short-form PD-R LOCATION:2701 —2723 Walker Street DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Christopher L.Griffin Marvin T.Griffin 8212 Pine Summit Court 11324 Kanis Road Little Rock,AR 72204 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:0.75 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R PROPOSED USE:Multi-family (24 units per acre) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes the construction of 18 units of multi-family housing on this 0.75 acre site.The site will be accessed by a single entry from Walker Street with all the parking spaces heading into the buildings.There are 32 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282 B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant,flat,grass covered site and the few trees,which once occupied the site have been removed.The area is primarily developed as single- family in all directions around the site.There is a sidewalk along West 28'"Street adjacent to the site and running west but not extending any further to the east. West 28'"Street also has curb and gutter in place.Walker Street is an unimproved roadway with open ditches for drainage. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the development.The John Barrow,the Campus Place,the Westbrook,the Kensington Place Neighborhood Association,all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet of the site and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1.Walker Street would be classified under this proposal on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at 28'"Street and Walker Street. 3.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development.(Street width on 28'"Street is adequate.) 4.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Edge of driveway on Walker must have minimum 25'pacing from property line.As an alternative,take access from 28'"Street. 5.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. 6.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information. 7.Stormwater detention ordinance does not apply to this property. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282 E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project.Capacity Contribution Analysis is required.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 for additional details. AP 8 L:No comment received. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 regarding water service to this development.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense. Fptre Detartment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 319-3752 for additional details. ~Count Plannin:No comment received. CATA:The site is no located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:The request is located in the Boyle Park Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development —Residential for apartments (18 Units).A Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-10-04), Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan.The housing and neighborhood revitalization goal of improving the overall appearance and safety of the neighborhood is supplemented by an objective of reviewing design standards for new construction of residential units,which is supported by an action statement stating that the design of new residential units should be compatible with existing architecture in the area. ~bandana e:The plan submitted does not allow for the minimum nine fp)foot wide land use buffer,or the minimum 6.7 foot wide landscape strip along the northern perimeter of the site.A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B1 Cont FILE NO '-7282 wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall,or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the site. ~ttuttdin Codes:No comment received. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002) The applicant was not present.Staff presented the item to the Committee indicating the intent of the development.Staff stated there were technical issues associated with the proposed development and Staff would work with the applicant to resolve these issues prior to the Commission meeting. The Committee then determined there were no further issues for discussion.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant has not submitted a revised plan to staff therefore,there are several technical issues which still need to be resolved.The applicant has not indicated the location of the dumpster.It is possible the dumpster could be located at the end of the driveway in the parking area to the north.The applicant will be required to fully screen the dumpster as required by the ordinance,three sides at least two feet above the top of the dumpster. The applicant also has not relocated the driveway.In Staff's opinion the development and the neighborhood would be better served if the driveway were moved to West 28th Street and access were not allowed from Walker Street. There would be an estimated 150 to 200 trips per day generated from the development.West 28'"Street,in some areas,has been constructed to Master Street Plan Standard and is classified as a collector street while Walker Street is an unimproved roadway adjacent to the site and is classified as a residential street.(The portion of Walker Street south of the site,from West 28'"Street to Asher Avenue is classified as a collector street and has been constructed.)Staff feels the bulk of the traffic should be routed to the collector street. The applicant has also not indicated screening and landscaping.The applicant will be required to install a nine (9)foot wide buffer along the northern perimeter of the site and a six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence or dense evergreen plantings,along the northern,southern and eastern perimeters of the site. Although,there are many technical questions left unanswered,Staff feels the issues can be "flushed out"at the Public Hearing. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282 Staff is not supportive of the application,as filed.The proposed density of the development is too intense for this site.The site is situated in the heart of a single-family neighborhood and the area of the proposed development is much too small to accommodate a development of this intensity.Furthermore,Walker Street is an unimproved chip seal roadway with open ditches for drainage.Even though the applicant would be required to install street improvements adjacent to the site,the remainder of Walker Street would remain in its current conditions. The area has "turned around"in the past few years with several new single- family homes having been built.A development of this intensity could reverse the trend of the neighborhood and cause the area to begin a decline or become stagnant.Staff feels a development of this intensity would be better served by locating nearer Asher Avenue,John Barrow Road or West 12'"Street.Staff does not feel the placement of 18 multi-family units on this site is an appropriate measure.Staff feels a development of 24-units per acre is much too intense for this site but a development of lower density might be appropriate as in-fill. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested application for Griffin Short-form PD-R as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(SEPTEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Christopher Griffin was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing to allow Mr.Griffin time to work with the neighborhood on issues associated with the proposed development,to review the proposed density and possible reduce the density.Staff stated the deferral would require a waiver of the By-Laws. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-Laws and place the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral to the October 31,2002 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for Deferral and approved,as recommended by Staff,by a vote of 11 ayes,0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request for the item to be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing.Staff stated they were supportive of this request. There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7282 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had verbally requested this item be withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request for withdrawal. Staff stated the applicant had indicated he was not ready to move forward with a development at this time and would resubmit an application when his development plans were firmed-up. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 6 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:LU02-10-06 Name:Land Use Plan Amendment -Boyle Park Planning District Location:South University just south of Boyle Park Road ~Re vest:Office to Commercial Source:Mare Yelenich PROPOSAL /REQUEST; Land Use Plan amendment in the Bayle Park Planning District from Office to Commercial.The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products,personal and professional services,and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale,depending on the areas that they serve. The applicant wishes to develop the property for self-storage and retail strip development. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently vacant land zoned R-2 Single Family and is approximately 10+acres in size.Most of the land to the north consists of houses zoned R-2 while the property along University Avenue is occupied with small businesses and eating establishments zoned C-3 General Commercial.The land to the east across University Avenue is wooded land north of the Cooperative Extension Service building which is zoned R-2.The land to the south and west consists of property zoned R-2 and developed with single-family houses. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND RECENT AMENDMENTS: On July 17,2001 a change was made from Singe Family to Park/Open Space at W.14" Street and Pierce Street about a "/~mile northeast of the application area to recognize Oak Forest Park. On October 17,2000 multiple changes were made from Public Institutional and Multi- Family to Commercial and Light Industrial at the intersection of Fair Park Boulevard and Asher Avenue about 1 mile southeast of the property in question to recognize existing conditions. The applicant's property is shown as Office on the Future Land Use Plan.The area to the north is shown as Single Family with Commercial shown along University Avenue. The land to the east of University is shown as Public Institutional.The remainder of the land to the south and west is shown as Single Family. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06 MASTER STREET PLAN: University Avenue is shown on the Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial and is built to a four-lane width.Half street improvements would be needed to improve this section of University Avenue to Principal Arterial design standards.There are no Bikeways shown on the Master Street Plan that would be affected by this amendment. PARKS: There are four parks shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Plan of 2001 that are located within an eight-block distance of the applicant's property. Boyle Park,located at W.36'"Street and Boyle Park Road,is shown as a 50+acre Large Urban Park located west of the applicant's property.University Park,located at W.12'"Street and Leisure Lane,is shown as a 20-50 acre Community Park northwest of the study area.Boyle Park provides a mixture of active and passive recreational opportunities,while University Park is the site of the Raymond Rebsamen Tennis Center.Oak Forest Park,located at W.14'"Street and Pierce Street,is shown as a mini-Park under 5 acres northeast of the property in question and is designed specifically to serve the needs of the Oak Forest neighborhood,which surrounds the park.Curran-Conway Park,located at W.24'"Street and Monroe Street,is shown as a as a 20-50 acre Community Park located east of the UALR campus and is located the furthest distance from the amendment area. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There is not any historic districts near-by that would be affected by this amendment. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ANALYSIS: The applicant's property is located in an area that is physically separated from the neighboring Single Family uses based on the street pattern.The only practical access to the property in question is from University Avenue.The neighboring houses are oriented in such a way that the back yards face the applicant's property,The Commercial uses to the north face University Avenue. The wooded lot is accessed from University Avenue.The street pattern of the area isolates the applicant's property from the neighboring residential areas. The effects on the neighborhood would include four issues:traffic,topography,scale, and massing.Commercial development on this property could increase traffic on a 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06 portion of University Avenue that is not built to Principal Arterial design standards. Construction on this property would result in the alteration of the hillside on which this property is located.Development on this property would also need a sufficient buffer between any buildings and parking lots and the neighboring single-family residences to compensate for the scale and massing of future buildings built on the property.Without sufficient buffers,the neighboring properties would be impacted by Commercial uses on the applicant's property.Although there is a change in topographical elevation between the site and the surrounding neighborhood,this application would allow development that could result in a non-residential intrusion into the neighborhood.The massing, scale,visual impacts,and noise generation of any development on this site should be minimized to isolate the affects of any non-residential development on the neighboring single-family development. Most of the land shown as Commercial located along the west side of University Avenue is on average about 150'+deep.This application would allow the development of Commercial uses on a piece of property that is about 605'+deep.This increase in depth could change the character of the neighborhood and allow the development of a large area shown as Commercial on University Avenue that is located about half way between the intersections of the arterials at W.12'"Street and Asher Avenue.The thin strip of land shown as Commercial north of the applicant's property separates the houses to the west from the traffic on University Avenue while no such barrier is provided for the houses to the south.Most of the businesses to the north are small neighborhood businesses.Any turnover in the businesses to the north would accommodate room for another small neighborhood oriented business to move in.The application area is large enough to accommodate a larger Commercial use that would draw customers from a larger market area that might not be oriented toward the neighborhood. Currently,this portion of University Avenue acts as a buffer between the University to the east and the residential area to the west.Commercial uses at this location would erode that buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Broadmoor Neighborhood Association,Brownwood Terrace Neighborhood Association,College Terrace Neighborhood Association,Point O'Woods Neighborhood Association, University Park Neighborhood Association,Westwood Neighborhood Association, Curran-Conway Neighborhood Association,and Oak Forest Neighborhood Association. Staff has not received comments from area residents at the time of this report. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO 'U02-10-06 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate.A change to Commercial would extend the strip of Commercial development to the south and intrude into the residential area to the west. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The applicant was notified that only seven members of the Planning Commission were present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the November 14,2002 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the November 14,2002 Planning Commission meeting.The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes,and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002) The applicant was notified that only eight members of the Planning Commission were present.The applicant requested a deferral of the item to the December 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting. A motion was made to approve the deferral of the item to the December 19,2002 Planning Commission meeting.The item was approved with a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes, and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Brian Minyard,City Staff,made a brief presentation to the commission,Donna James, City Staff,made a presentation of item C.1 so the discussion could coincide with the discussion for item C.See item C.1 for.a complete discussion concerning the Long Form Planned Commercial Development. Commissioner Obray Nunnley asked if staff was opposed to the zoning change and a discussion followed concerning staff recommendations on the two items.Ms.James stated that staff opposed the Land Use Plan Amendment and the PCD as filed. Mr.Minyard stated that the Plan Amendment was ddiven by the PCD application. Mr.Jim Lawson,Secretary to the Planning Commission,stated that staff opposed the Plan Amendment because the Commercial category is too broad in terms of the future uses that could occur on the property in question.The PCD application is specific in 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C Cont.FILE NO.:LU02-10-06 terms of what uses are allowed on the property and that staff was concerned about the land alterations that could result from the PCD as filed. Commissioner Nunnley asked why staff was opposed changing the land use category to Commercial for the property in question.Mr.Lawson stated that the site is not appropriate for all of the uses allowed in the Commercial Future Land Use category. Mr.Lawson stated that staff supported limited commercial uses on the property but that the current PCD application was too intense and that staff was concerned with cut and fill issues. Mr.Mare Yelenich,the applicant,spoke in support of the application.Mr.Yelenich gave a brief description of the history of the property and stated that the most of the property owners abutting the property supported his proposal. Mr.Maury Mitchell,representing the current property owners,spoke in support of the application and stated that this application would allow new development on University Avenue. Mr.Arthur Connerly,a member of the family that owns the property,spoke in support of the application and stated his family's desire to sell the property.Mr.Connerly added that he opposed past for developing the property but stated that the current application would provide security for the property with the construction of a fence that would keep vagrants off of the land. Ms.Andrea Hooten,President of the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association,spoke in opposition to the application and stated that Mr.Yelenich did not survey enough residents of the neighborhood to properly obtain the opinions of residents.Ms.Hooten stated concerns about the possible storage of hazardous materials,security,traffic generation,noise and light pollution,destruction of trees,and questionable retail uses. Ms.Hooten closed her remarks by stating that the types of retail businesses that would locate at this property would be undesirable. Commissioner Norm Floyd asked Ms.Hooten what the proper use for the property in question would be.Ms.Hooten stated that Single Family would be a proper land use for the property. A motion was made to approve the item as presented.The item was denied with a vote of 0 ayes,8 noes,1 abstention,and 2 absent. 5 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:C.1 FILE NO.:Z-4644-B NAME:Yelenich Long-form PCD LOCATION:2000 Block of South University Avenue;on the West side DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Mare Yelenich ETC Engineers 110 South Shore Drive 1510 S.Broadway Maumelle,AR 72113 Little Rock,AR 72202 AREA:10+Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING:PCD PROPOSED USE:Mini-warehouse and General Commercial (C-3 uses) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: An application was filed in April of 1986 for a rezoning from R-2 to C-3,with conditions, for this site.The applicant proposed the placement of an auto specialty shopping center at this location.The applicant later withdrew the request and the property remained zoned R-2,Single-family. The Planning Commission later reviewed an application for the placement of non- traditional multi-family housing on this site on February 14,2002.The proposed development included dormitory style housing,four bedrooms sharing a common kitchen and living area.The proposal included seven rows of structures,each separate buildings,all three stories in height,all having a six car garage on the first level and two levels of living area above.There were to be 43 buildings total.A building included December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO:Z-4644-B eight bedroom facilities,four on the second level and four on the third level.The levels each had four bedrooms and a separate bath,which could be secured,and were to share a common open area and kitchen facility.The applicant proposed,in addition to the garage parking spaces,an additional 153 surface parking spaces along the perimeter of the property. The applicant withdrew the proposal after receiving an abundance of neighborhood opposition to the development. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision as a part of the application.On Lot 1,the applicant proposes the placement of 90,000 square feet of self-storage, mini-warehouse.The facility will be buffered by an undisturbed and terraced area,with ground cover between retaining walls.The applicant is proposing a 2-story 2,400 square foot resident manager's office as a part of the development. The units will be ground level single story units.Approximately 25%of the units will be climate controlled units.The applicant is proposing a sign located at the entrance adjacent to South University Avenue.The sign is proposed to be a monument style sign and be approximately 5-foot by 10-foot or 50-square feet in area and have a time and temperature LED reader board.The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental leasing service from the mini-warehouse office building. Lot 2 will consist of a 22,500 square foot retail strip center with C-3 uses being requested.There will be approximately 10 individual business bays within the development,however,the interior walls will be moveable to accommodate various sizes of lease space which would affect the total number of tenants.The applicant is requested a ground mounted sign to be located on this lot as well. The sign will be located near the driveway at be approximately 10-feet by 15-feet or 150 square feet in area.The applicant is proposing a LED reader board as part of the signage.The applicant has indicated the building facade will have sign area above each retail bay for individual tenant identification. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site,which has been previously graded and somewhat leveled.The area to the east of the site is also vacant and tree covered with the area to the southeast being the UALR Cooperative Extension Service Center.Uses to the north of the site are commercial type uses such as check cashing,liquor store and restaurants.Uses to the south and west of the site are single-family residences of the Boardmoore and Point O'oods neighborhoods. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B South University Avenue is a four lane roadway without a median break at this location.Median breaks are located to the south at Berkshire Drive and to the north at Boyle Park Road.Currently there are plans to widen South University Avenue. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing Staff has received several phone calls both in support and opposition of the proposal.The applicant has met with the Neighborhood Associations and the area residents prior to submission of his application. All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents,who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site and the Broadmoore,the University Park,the Oak Forest, the Point O'oods,the Curran Conway and the 25 residents who signed in at an information meeting held September 23,2002 were notified of the public hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.University Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial.Dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required as indicated on the plans. 2.Provide design of street conforming to Master Street Plan.Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned development.This requirement will be waived if the bids have been opened for the planned University widening project prior to approval of the building permit.No new median cuts are allowed on University. 3.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering at (501)379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property as indicated on the plans. 5.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 6.A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c)8 (d).Hillside cuts must comply with the land alteration ordinance including but not limited to a 15-foot maximum cut between benches (the plan shows 17').Cuts over 10- feet vertical must be faced with architectural stone. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO C 1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. EntercnE:No comment received. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:A 10-foot utility easement along the north,west and south property lines of Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be required. Water:No objection. ~Fire Ce artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. CountOPlanning:No comment received. CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹17,¹17A and ¹21 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development to allow a mini-storage development and retail shopping. A land use plan amendment for a change to Commercial is a separate item on this agenda.(Item ¹10 File No.LU02-10-06) Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in an area not covered by a city recognized neighborhood action plan. Landsca e Issues:The proposed land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters are required to have an undisturbed average width of twenty-one (21)feet.This takes into consideration the transfer allowed for the wide buffer proposed along the western perimeter.The full undisturbed width required without this transfer credit is twenty-eight (28)feet.The proposed undisturbed buffer width along the southern perimeter is ten (10)feet. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO '-4644-B A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings,is required along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued,it will be necessary to provide copies of an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. ~Bottdin Codes:No comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002) Mr.Mark Yelenich was present representing the application.Staff presented the proposed development indicating additional information needed on the site plan. Staff questioned if there was to be any outdoor storage,boats,campers,etc. Staff also requested details of the proposed signage.Staff requested the days and hours of operation and the estimated number of bays for the retail center. Staff stated the applicant would be required to pay improvement cost for the widening of South University Avenue if a building permit were obtained prior to the letting of the bid on the publicly financed widening project.Staff stated there would not be any additional median cuts allowed on South University Avenue. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated at least 70%of the buffer was to remain undisturbed.Staff stated the southern land use buffer should maintain an average width of 21 feet. After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there will be no outdoor storage on the site (no boats,campers,etc.)and has indicated the dumpster location with the proper screening.The applicant has also indicated the project will be built in three phases.Phase I will consist of construction of the resident managers/office building and the construction of the two mini-storage buildings,which run east and west.Phases II and III will consist of the construction of the two additional mini-warehouse buildings and the construction of the retail building.The applicant has indicated he will not construct the retail center until he is 50%pre-leased.He has indicated he will 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B not construct the additional mini-warehouse buildings until Phase I of the mini- warehouse is 70%leased. The applicant has requested a 2-foot by 10-foot sign located adjacent to the mini- warehouse development.He is requesting the sign be allowed LED time and temperature display within the sign area.The signage for the commercial center is proposed as a monument sign 3-feet by 10-feet sign area with a LED reader board.The applicant also proposes to park a 16-foot moving van with an advertising logo on the side adjacent to the street.The van will be made available to persons renting the mini-warehouse units.Staff is not supportive of the placement of the moving van on the site near the street.Staff feels (although not an actual sign)it will have the appearance of a billboard. The applicant proposes the self-storage hours of operation to be from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 12:00 noon on Saturday and closed on Sunday.The gate hours are proposed to be from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm 7 days per week.For an additional fee the applicant has indicated tenants would have 24-hour access to the site.The intent is not to collect an additional income but to limit the number of tenants entering after normal gate hours.The applicant has stated the retail building will have approximately 10 different businesses and their hours of operation may vary.Staff is not supportive of not limiting the hours of operation on this site and leaving the possibility of 24-hour operations open to a potential user. The applicant proposes to operate a truck rental/leasing office (Penske Truck Rental)from the site as well.The applicant has requested two spaces be designated as truck parking.He has stated the site would not have more than two truck on the site at a time but there were times when there would not be any trucks on the site.Staff is not supportive of this request. The applicant proposes a resident manager on-site for the mini-warehouse development.The development will consist of a two (2)story 30x40-foot structure to act as both the office/retail sales area/break-room with the living quarters upstairs. The applicant proposes the office/residence to have either standing seam metal or asphalt shingle roofing material with a 20-foot eave height;the roof will be constructed on a 6 on 12 pitch.The self storage buildings are proposed with standing seam galvanized metal roof with an eve height of 10.5 feet;the roof will have a ~/~on 12 pitch and will not be colored.Staff recommends the roofs be constructed of non-reflective matedals to lessen the heat vapors and to avoid any potential impacts to surrounding neighbors.The applicant proposes the retail center to be either a standing seam or screw down metal roof with a front eave height of 21-feet.There will be a parapet on the front of the building,which 6 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B would add an additional 9-feet to the finished building height.The maximum building height in C-3 zoning district is 35-feet,consistent with the applicant's proposal. The applicant has indicated undisturbed areas to the north,south and west property lines consistent with the land use buffer requirements.The applicant has also indicated a cut and two (2)benches in 10-foot intervals along the western boundary to eliminate concerns of the Land Alteration Ordinance.The applicant is proposing riprap along these benches,which from an engineering standpoint is a workable alternative.From a design standpoint it is not a workable alternative.Staff is not supportive of the request to place riprap along the entire area.Staff feels the applicant should install a split faced block wall along the top terrace,which will be visible from the street and the riprap treatment along the lower terrace. Although Staff has some concerns with the proposed development,the workability of retail on South University Avenue without a median break,Staff is inclined to support the proposed development.The addition of mini-warehouse to this site,Staff feels is a viable development approach.Typically mini- warehouse development is a low traffic generator,destination bound development and the hours of operation are not typically intrusive to the neighbors.Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to do too much on the site. Staff cannot support the unlimited hours of operation for the retail or the mini- warehouse center.Staff feels the development should be limited to hours of operation consistent with development in the area. Staff is not supportive of the request to allow the applicant's truck to be parked adjacent to South University Avenue and act as additional signage.Staff also does not support allowing the applicant to operate a truck rental business from the site.Once again Staff feels the applicant maybe trying to conduct to many activities on this site. Staff cannot support the proposed treatment of the slope on the rear (western boundary)of the site.Staff would recommend the applicant install an architectural wall on the top portion of the sloped area and then the riprap along the lower tier.Even though motorists are traveling at a somewhat higher rate of speed through the area,the rock will be visible from the street and the parking lot.Staff feels the addition of the block wall will enhance the development adding to the design theme the applicant has indicated he wishes to pursue. 7 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B Staff is in support of the concept to the proposed development.Staff feels should the applicant revise his application to include the recommendations included above and limit the number of uses proposed on the site after which Staff could possible support the proposed development. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed development as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present. Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002) Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present. Mr.Yelenich requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Mare Yelenich was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of denial of the development plan as filed.Staff stated they were supportive of the concept to allow a mini- warehouse and commercial building to develop on the site but there were concerns with the hours of operation of the mini-warehouse,the placement of a truck rental business on the site,the placement of the applicant's moving van adjacent to South University Avenue and the treatment of the cut located on the western portion of the property. 8 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-4644-B Staff stated the applicant had indicated he would comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance.Staff stated they felt the placement of a split face block wall was more appropriate in this location for aesthetic reasons.Staff stated since the request was a rezoning to a planned development the request was not out of line.Staff stated the applicant had indicated he would construct a quality development.Staff stated in their opinion meeting the minimum requirements of the ordinance did not constitute a quality development. Mr.Yelenich presented his proposed development plan to the Commission indicating he was agreeable to not have the ancillary service of a truck rental business on the site. He also stated he was willing to locate his companies moving van to the rear of the site behind the commercial building. Mr.Yelenich requested the hours of operation for the mini-warehouse to remain at 24- hour access.He stated currently at his other two (2)locations only ten (10)percent of the customers opted for the 24-hour access and of that only five (5)percent accessed the site after the gates were closed at 10:00 pm.He stated based on a survey of the yellow pages over fifty (50)percent of the current facilities offer this service.He stated some customers who used this service,such as pharmaceutical representatives or doctors,needed to access their storage unit after hours when they were leaving town early to call on customers. Mr.Yelenich stated he had also agreed to place non-reflective roofs on the units as requested by Staff because he also felt this was a good idea.He stated he was willing to assist the city with reducing heat effect caused by reflective roofs. Mr.Yelenich stated with regard to the treatment of the slope he was willing to place the split faced block wall on the top terrace if and where required.He stated he was no longer requesting rip-rap on the lower terrace.He stated a geo-technical engineer had stated the slope appeared that it would maintain without terracing the cut.Mr.Yelenich stated he was willing to install an erosion control mat and hydro seed creeping love grass on both terrace areas,which in his opinion,would be more aesthetically pleasing, Mr.Maury Mitchell spoke in support of the proposed development.He stated the approval of the development would only add to the revitalization efforts of South University Avenue.He stated the proposed use would not generate a large amount of additional traffic since mini-warehouse was typically a low generator of traffic. Mr.Arthur Connerly spoke in support of the proposed development.He stated with the proposed development the site would be fenced thus adding additional security to the adjacent residences. Ms.Andrea Hooten spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated she was the President of the Broadmoore Neighborhood Association and the Association was not in support of the proposed development.She stated the concern was related to 9 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C.1 Cont.FILE NO.:2-4644-B the unregulated storage of materials on the site and the possible contamination of the air and/or ground and stormwater.She stated the neighborhood also had concerns with allowing 24-hour access to the site.She stated this would only invite an element of crime to the neighborhood. She stated the site did not have a median break.She stated this would cause motorist to make u-turns south of the site at the traffic light at the U of A Cooperative Extension Service building intersection or to "cut-through"the neighborhood.She stated the applicant had stated there would be an estimated 50 cars per day visiting the site.She stated this was a significant number of cars which would be exiting the site and looking for avenues to travel north.She stated without the median break there were concerns that the site would not draw stable businesses.She stated this would not enhance the redevelopment of South University Avenue but hinder the redevelopment with increased business vacancies. Ms.Anne Wasson chose not to address the Commission. There was limited discussion concerning the applicant's revision to his application and the treatment of the western slope.The applicant indicated he would revise his application to limit the hours of operation of the retail business to 12:00 midnight,to limit the number of occupants who had 24-hour access to the mini-warehouse to 10 percent of the customers,to not allow the truck rental business as an ancillary service and to place his moving van behind the commercial building away from South University Avenue. Mr.Yelenich stated he was willing to comply with the Land Alteration Ordinance.He stated he was not willing to install a split faced block wall on the upper terrace for the entire length of the western cut only for aesthetic reasons.He stated the placement of the block would cost an estimated $150,000,which would place the development cost to high to receive a return on his investment and put the project out of reach.He stated he was willing to place split faced block if and where needed and in other locations to place a erosion control matting and hydro seed creeping love grass on both terraces. There was a motion to accept Mr.Yelenich's proposal as amended.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and 2 absent. 10 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:D FILE NO Z-7281-A NAME:Threadgill Short-form PD-R LOCATION:12800 Arthur Lane DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Richard Threadgill Donald Brooks 2303 East Grand Avenue 20880 Arch Street Hot Springs,AR 71901 Hensley,AR 72065 AREA:0.46Acres NUMBEROF LOTS:3 FT.NEW STREET;0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R PROPOSED USE:Residential —Townhouse development (6 units total or 13 units per acre) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: At the September 19,2002 Public Hearing of the Planning Commission,an application for the placement of eight units of townhouse development was denied.The Commission also voted to allow the applicant to resubmit a site plan at a lesser density without paying a filing fee should the applicant resubmit a plan within a three-month time period.The Commission also indicated the applicant would not be required to file a Land Use Plan amendment if the proposal was a lesser density. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A A.PROPOSAURE VEST: The applicant proposes the placement of six (6)townhouse residential units on these three lots.There are three (3)units proposed to be located on the south property line (to back-up to Arthur Lane)and three (3)units to be located along the north property line.There will be a single concrete drive access point to the site from Atkins Road entering the center of the development. Units 2 and 5 are proposed at 1440 square feet with a 240 square foot garage. Units 1,3,4 and 6 are proposed at 1656 square feet with a 240 square foot garage.The applicant has indicated all units will be two-story.The units will consist of concrete block foundation,concrete slab on the first floor,wood framing,drywall interiors,composition shingles and brick and vinyl siding exteriors. The applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wood fence along the north,south and west property lines and a wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins Road.The development will utilize city garbage pick-up with residents taking their trash to the street side. The applicant has stated the units are for resale as individual homes and a Property Owners Association will be formed for maintenance and upkeep of the common areas. The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Arthur Lane and Atkins Road. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains three lots one of which (the western-most lot)contains a single- family residence facing Arthur Lane.The site is zoned R-2,single-family as is the area surrounding the site and is shown as Single Family on the Future Land Use Plan.The area to the east is a developed single-family subdivision (Point West Subdivision)and the area to the north and west are developed with single- family residences.The area to the south of the site from Atkins Road to Nix Road is vacant (with the exception of a few homes located on Atkins Road)down to Kanis Road. Atkins Road is a two lane roadway with curb and gutter on the east side of the road with no sidewalk.Arthur Lane is a narrow chip seal roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalk adjacent to the site. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Parkway Place and the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Associations,all residents,who could be identified,within 300-feet of the site and all property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing.Staff has received several phone calls and letters in opposition to the proposed development. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works: 1.Atkins Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a commercial street. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2.Arthur Lane is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline. 3.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at Atkins Road and Arthur Lane. 4.Provide design of the streets conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with the planned development.Sidewalks must be continuous across all street frontage with appropriate handicap ramps. 5.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Curb radius of driveway at Atkins needs to be 10'inimum. 6.Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts.Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way.Contact Traffic Engineering at 501-379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield)for more information. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional details at 688-1414. AP &L:No comment received. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Water:A water main extension,installed at the expense of the developer,will be required to provide domestic service and adequate fire protection.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the expense of the 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A developer.An acreage charge of $600.00 per acre and a development fee based on the size of the connection currently applies in addition to normal charges in the area.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. ~Fire Ce artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 319-3752 for additional details. CountcPlanntn L:No comment received. CATA:Site is located on Bus Route f/5 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Development —Residential to build a six (6)unit townhouse development.The applicant previously filed a Land Use Plan Amendment with his proposal which was heard at the September 19,2002 Public Hearing (LU02-18-04)and was denied by the Commission.It was Staff's understanding the applicant would not be required to file a Land Use Plan amendment if he resubmitted his proposal at a lesser density,although the density proposed with the current development plan results in 13 units per acre or multifamily density. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan.The Residential Development goal is supported by an objective of encouraging lower density development in the area to act as a buffer between single family and more intense non-residential uses.Action Statements include using multi-family housing to act as a buffer between office and single-family uses and limiting the density and square footage of multi-family developments. ~bandana e:The plan submitted falls short of the required nine (pi foot viide land use buffer along the northern and southern perimeters of the site.Additionally,a portion of the landscape strip west of the proposed paved area drops below the 6.7-foot minimum width requirement of the Landscape Ordinance. A water source within seventy.-five (75)feet of all landscaped areas will be required.The face side of the proposed wood fence must be directed outward. ~Buitdin Codes:No comment received. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 'Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002) Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.Staff presented the item to the Committee noting additions,which were needed on the site plan (Signage,height of the wrought iron fence).Staff noted the applicant had a proposal before the Commission at their September 19,2002 Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had reduced the density and resubmitted his development plan. Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated street improvements would be required to both Atkins Road and Arthur Lane.Staff also stated a 20-foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of the two roadways.The applicant indicated he would construct "/~street improvements to both streets. Staff noted comments from the various utility companies noting a sewer main extension and a water main extension would be required along with easements. There being no further issues to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated patios to be attached to each structure within the side yard setback located two (2)feet off the property line.A six (6)foot open-air wood fence will separate the units and act as a screen.The applicant proposes a six (6)foot wooden fence located along the north,south and west property lines with a six (6)foot wrought iron fence along the street side of Atkins Road. The landscaping along the north and south property lines is insufficient when the patios are added.The landscaping strip along the northern and southern perimeter should maintain a minimum of nine (9)feet in width and at no point fall below 6.7-feet.The addition of the patio in this area leaves a minimal side yard setback (2-feet).The applicant has indicated the area will be surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence and even if a setback were in place and landscaping installed the adjoining property owners would not see the area.(The reduction is a land use buffer issue and the reduction maybe approved by the Planning Commission.)Staff is supportive of the reduction of landscaped area since the applicant has increased the street buffer area and has increased the buffer area adjoining the single-family to the west.The applicant has also increased the number of trees proposed in this area to act as future screening from the second floor of the units. 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A The applicant has narrowed the turnaround along the western driveway and proposed the installation of flat landscaping stones and mondo grass between the stones to allow for additional landscaping in the turn-around.Staff is supportive of this request.The stones add a residential character to the development and the addition of the grasses will break the hard surface areas. Although,Staff was not supportive of the previous proposal Staff feels the current density could be workable with the neighborhood.The proposed development results in 13 units per acre on three (3)previously platted lots.The proposed development includes six (6)units,which is double the number of units allowable by right on the site.Staff feels comfortable with the proposed density on the site. The applicant is proposing two story buildings.The building height proposed is not any higher than a two-story single-family home,which could be constructed on the site.Staff feels window placement is important so as to not intrude on the single-family residence located west and north of the site.The applicant has indicated the second story will not have windows facing the western property line. The applicant has also indicated the placement of trees along the western perimeter to further screen the homes to the west. The applicant has indicated street improvements will be constructed to Atkins Road and to Arthur Lane. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Planned Residential Development for Threadgill Short-form PD-R subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Faust stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.She stated there were only six (6)Commissioners present. Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent. 6 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:2-7281-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002) Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present. Mr.Threadgill requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing, There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Richard Threadgill was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated although the development equated to 13 units per acre the development was double the density currently allowed or six (6)units instead of three (3)units. Ms.Ruth Bell,League of Women's Voters of Pulaski County,spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated the density proposed was too great for the area. She also stated the design of the development did not lend itself to the character of the neighborhood.She questioned if the units were to be renter or owner occupied.Staff stated the applicant had indicated the units would be owner occupied. Ms.Mary Douglas spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated the design of the proposed development was not compatible with the neighborhood or with the concept of new urbanism.She stated the demand of town home buyers was more for the trend of a detached housing feel although the units were attached. Ms.Douglas stated the area around the site was developed to the north with smaller homes on larger lots.She stated the front of the buildings were not facing the street as would enhance the proposed development.She also stated the scale of the development did not fit with the neighborhood. Ms.Douglas stated the change in the zoning would be a change to multi-family in the heart of a single-family neighborhood.She stated the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan called for a balance of office and multi-family in the area and the change would not maintain that balance. Ms.Shirley McFarland spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated the area nearer Markham Street was previously zoned for an office development in which only one office building had been constructed.She also stated in an unscientific survey of the area driving west only there were 5 apartment complexes with 1400 rental 7 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7281-A units and numerous small scale townhouse developments within a five (5)minute drive area.She stated the rents in the area ranges from $500 -$1000 per month. Ms.McFarland stated that Mr.Threadgill had indicated he would offer these units for sale at a sales price of $120,000 to $125,000 per unit.She stated the Census median sales price for a condo unit in the areas was only $95,600.She stated the units were priced well above the median price range. Ms.McFarland stated the area residents were opposed to the rezoning request.She stated this should be apparent by the sixty-one (61)signatures previously submitted in opposition to the proposed development. Commissioner Faust stated she was not supportive of the proposed development even though she was an advocate for mixing densities.She stated the proposed development did not take in consideration scale and compatibility to the neighborhood. She stated the proposed development would be a better fit to the neighborhood if the buildings were oriented towards the street. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the density. Commissioner Faust questioned Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,as to the areas that could be considered when approving a planned development.Mr.Giles stated in a planned development the Commission could require and impose conditions on an application as a condition of approval. A motion was made to accept the application as filed.The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,3 noes and 3 absent. 8 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:G-23-317 Name:Wingate Drive Abandonment Location:A portion of Wingate Drive lying north of Markham Street in Little Rock, Pulaski County,Arkansas ~Owner/A licene Thomas L.Jones,Meredith Taft;Clyde Karnes,Betty Karnes Receuest:To abandon approximately 25'f that portion of Wingate Drive lying north of Markham Street.Existing right-of-way width is 50 feet. STAFF REVIEW: 1.Public Need for This Ri ht-of-Wa Wingate Drive is a residential street providing access to the Wingate subdivision located north of Markham and west of Mississippi Streets. Wingate Drive intersects with Markham Street approximately 400 feet west of the Markham and Mississippi intersection and Mississippi Street approximately 300 feet north of the intersection. Early this year,Wingate residents complained that Wingate Drive was being used as a ncut through"between Markham and Mississippi to avoid the intersection.According to the residents,both the volume and speed of the cut through traffic caused a hazard to the neighborhood. Public Works conducted traffic counts on Wingate Drive in August 2001 and January 2002.The 2001 count indicated 377 west bound vehicles and 187 east bound vehicles in a 10-hour period at a median speed of 22 miles per hour and an 85'"percentile speed of 28 mph. The 2002 count indicated 344 east bound and 492 west bound vehicles in an 11 hour period at a median speed of 22 mph and an 85'"percentile speed of 28 mph. In April of this year,Public Works erected temporary barriers to close the entrance off Markham Street and few complaints have been received as a result of this closure.In June,residents brought an application to the December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 Board of Directors to close Wingate Drive at its intersection with Markham Street and the Board referred the action to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The applicants are property owners abutting Wingate Drive at its intersection with Markham Street. 2.Master Street Plan Wingate Drive is classified as a local street.Both Markham Street and Mississippi Street are classified as minor arterials. 3.Need for Ri ht-of-Wa on Ad'acent Streets The current right-of-way width of Markham Street at this location is 60'. The Master Street Plan calls for a width of right-of-way of 70 feet at this location.Five feet of right-of-way will be retained at the intersection of Wingate with Markham (35 feet from the centerline of Markham)to provide the required Master Street Plan right-of-way width. 4.Develo ment Potential This is an established area consisting of mostly single family homes. There is little re-development potential in the vicinity of Wingate. 5.Nei hborhood Land Use and Effect This established area along Markham and Mississippi has been developed for many years and the majority of land use in the immediate vicinity is single family.In the past,because Wingate drive connects to the south to Markham,and to the east to Mississippi,Wingate has been used by some drivers as a way to bypass the intersection of Mississippi and Markham.This "cut-through"traffic has been cited by the applicants as the reason for requesting closure.Closing this portion of Wingate would mean that only local traffic in the neighborhood would use this street. Closure would also limit alternatives for local traffic to enter and leave the subdivision.All traffic would have to enter and exit the subdivision from Mississippi Avenue.Traffic Counts on Mississippi are 17,000 vehicles per day,and 20,000 vehicles per day use Markham. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 6.Nei hborhood Position All abutting property owners and neighborhood associations were notified of the public hearing.At this writing,one objection to the closure from a landowner in Wingate has been received. 7.Effect on Public Services or Utilities Several utility companies have facilities located in the existing right-of- way.There is no objection to closure of the right-of-way,provided a utility easement is retained. Fire Department —has no objection to the abandonment 8.Reversiona Ri hts All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property owners. A utility and access easement will also be retained in the former right-of- way. 9.Public Welfare and Safet Issues Permanently abandoning this segment of Wingate will reduce traffic on this local street,and would be expected to enhance public safety for those residents living on Wingate.However,closure would also limit the options residents have for entering and leaving the subdivision,routing all traffic to a single entrance on Mississippi. Wingate is a local street not a part of the Master Street Plan network, Local streets are typically designed to carry up to 2500 vehicles per day, however,peak traffic counts on Wingate were 836 vehicles per day. Closure would have no measurable impact on traffic safety operations or the arterial network. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Since the proposed closure will have no significant impact on traffic operations and is primarily a neighborhood consideration,Public Works supports the closure. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION (JUNE,2002) The applicants originally filed the petition for abandonment directly with the Board of Directors.Rather that requesting closure under the statute for unused right-of- way,the petition requested closure under the State statute for closure under the general police powers of the Board.The Board declined to hear the petition and referred it to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the notices mailed to the area residents stated November 14,2002 as the Public Hearing date.Staff stated they were supportive of the request to defer the item to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion.The item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral and approved by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002) The applicant was present.There were objectors and supports present. Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8)Commissioners present. The applicant requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing.There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: Since the initial write-up,the fire department has changed their position and does not support the proposed closure because of the reduced access options in the area.Staff was hoping to obtain a letter from the Fire Department to include in the write-up,but to date they have not responded in writing. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Staff introduced the item and stated the Fire Department has changed their recommendation from the recommendation printed in the agenda.Staff stated the Fire Department had indicated all the Captains who worked on the change in recommendation were out and the basis for the change in the Fire Department's recommendation was not readily available.Staff stated they had been in contact with the City Manager and his suggestion was for the Commission to hear the item and prior to the Board of Directors meeting Staff and the Manager's office would work to resolve the issue. Staff stated traffic counts were perlormed on Wingate Drive prior to the revamping of the intersection of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue. Staff stated there were 564 vehicles per day at an 85-percentile speed of 28 miles per hour and after the change in the traffic light there were 836 vehicles per day at an 85-percentile speed of 28 miles per hour.Staff stated since the street had been temporarily closed there were 184 vehicles per day. Staff stated Public Works maintained a natural position on the closure since the closure appeared to have no significant impact on the street network within and around the city. Chairman Lowry asked the number of automobiles traveling Mississippi Avenue and West Markham Street daily.Staff stated there were 1000 vehicles traveling south bond on Mississippi Avenue and 1100 vehicles traveling northbound between 4:00 and 5:30 pm.Chairman Lowry questioned if motorist had a tendency to change into the right-hand lane when persons trying to cross traffic blocked the left lane.Staff stated this was true.Chairman Lowry questioned if the sight line was longer on West Markham Street or on Mississippi Avenue. Staff stated since Mississippi Avenue was hilly the sight line was longer on West Markham Street.Chairman Lowry stated he was concerned with only one access point into a subdivision in an emergency situation. After Chairman Lowry stated his concerns he stated would abstain from voting on the matter.He stated he was also not going to continue as Chair on the item and was going to turn the meeting over to the Acting Vice-Chair Commissioner Nunnley. After a general discussion between the Commissioners concerning which entrance should be closed the Acting Chair asked for citizen comments. Mr.Richard Cook spoke in support of the closure.He stated he lived at 30 Wingate Drive and asked the residents in support of the closure to please stand. Mr.Cook stated the traffic volume and congestion of West Markham Street and 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 Mississippi Avenue was significant.He stated both streets were classified on the City's Master Street Plan as Minor Arterials,which were designed to travel large amounts of traffic.He stated currently Mississippi Avenue carried an estimated 17,000 vehicles per day and West Markham Street carried an estimated 20,000 vehicles per day. Mr.Cook stated Wingate Drive was not intended to function as a cut-through street.He stated to avoid the congestion at the intersection of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue Wingate Drive had become a cut-through street. He stated the change in the traffic light at the intersection earlier in 2002 had had a dramatic negative impact on the neighborhood.Mr.Cook stated the pattern had been established and would continue to worsen.He stated the neighborhood was in need of a solution to a problem and the solution was to close the street at the West Markham Street intersection. Mr.Ed Matthews spoke in support of the closure.He gave a brief history of the neighborhood stated when the two (2)entrances were installed they were for convenience of the residents of the neighborhood.He stated this was no longer the case.Mr.Matthews stated there was a significant amount of traffic on West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue,which at the time the subdivision was developed West Markham Street was a two-lane road and Mississippi Avenue was a gravel road. Mr.Mathews stated the significant increase in the number of cars cutting-through the neighborhood had created safety concerns of the residents for children.He requested support of the Commission for closing the street. Mr.Terry Patterson stated safety and security as concern for closing the street. He stated since the street had been temporarily closed the number of vehicles traveling through the neighborhood had decreased significantly.He stated Wingate Drive was a curving and sloping street.He stated prior to the street closure there were several residents who had experienced break-ins and thefts but since the street had been temporarily closed the number of crimes had decreased. Mr.Patterson stated during a snow last year the children in the neighborhood had built a snowman in his yard.He stated at a later time a motorist traveling the street took the liberty to drive through his yard to destroy the snowman.He questioned what would have happened if the children had been hiding behind the pile of snow at the time the motorist drove through his yard. He stated his desire was to permanently close the street at the West Markham Street intersection and for the City to be proactive at this time rather than reactive when there was a death of a loved one. 6 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E Cont.FILE NO.:G-23-317 Mr.Jim Lawson,Director of Planning and Development,stated the applicant had indicated some concern with the number of voting members present. Mr.Lawson stated he had had a conversation with the Mayor's office earlier in the day and the consensus was the item would be forwarded to the Board of Director's to be heard in January regardless of the vote or no vote from the Commission. Mr.Stephen Giles,Deputy City Attorney,stated the Commission could forward the item to the Board of Directors without a recommendation.He stated this was not like a rezoning where Stated Law required a recommendation by the Commission prior to Board of Directors action. Commissioner Allen stated he did not have a problem hearing the item.He stated if the neighborhood was going to ask for the Commission to not make a recommendation then this was the time to do so.He stated if the item was to be heard entirely then he was going to ask the Commission for a vote. Commissioner Nunnley stated there were two (2)items he would like included in the minutes but did not want answers to.He questioned if there were traffic counts to support the neighborhood claim of the intrusion into the neighborhood. He also questioned what current traffic control measures were in place in the area and what measures were proposed.He stated perhaps the Board of Directors should consider speed breakers and signage. Chairman Lowry stated with every street closing there were things to consider. He stated every citizen pays taxes and has a right to travel on streets.He stated the freeway network should not be used to manage traffic and that neighborhoods should be open to all.He stated we have certain societal responsibility to not make gated and walled neighborhoods.He stated cut- through traffic was a way of life in the city.He stated if a street becomes dangerous to life and limb then the city should look at the closure of a street but not at the expense of others. A motion was made for the Commission to take no action on the item and send the item to the Board of Directors without a recommendation.The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent. 7 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-6178-F NAME:Stagecoach Village Revised PCD LOCATION:On the Southwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Finley &Company Hurricane Valley Engineers 9222 Stagecoach Road P.O.Box 118 Little Rock,AR 72210 Bryant,AR 72807 AREA:1.68 Acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Selected Office and Commercial Uses PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD PROPOSED USE:Selected C-3 Uses VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: On September 5,2000,the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No.18,342 establishing Stagecoach Village (Lot 4)Short-form PCD.The applicant proposed to construct a 3,600 square foot branch bank building and a 9,000 square foot commercial building and 54 parking spaces.At the time of approval,the applicant proposed to convert the bank building into a commercial building (C-2 uses)if a bank tenant could not be secured.The site plan was later revised (June 26,2001)at a Staff level to December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO '-6178-F remove the bank building from the site plan and the commercial building square footage was increased to 10,800 square feet.The applicant proposed the building to be used as 80%commercial (C-2 uses)and 20%office (general and professional). The previous proposal included two driveway locations onto the site.The site has developed with only one driveway location. The hours of operation were proposed at 8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday. A.PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved Planned Commercial Development to add the following..listed uses as alternative uses for the site and to market the site for 100%commercial uses. The requested uses include:Amusement (commercial,inside),Animal clinic (enclosed),Antique shop,with repair,Appliance repair,Bakery or confectionery shop,Bank or savings and loan office,Barber and beauty shop,Cabinet and woodwork shop,Camera shop,Catering,commercial,Church,Clinic (medical, dental or optical),Clothing store,Custom sewing and millinery,Day nursery and day care center,Day Care center,adult,Drugstore or pharmacy,Duplication shop, Eating place without drive-in service,Establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic or psychiatric patients,Establishment of a religious,charitable or philanthropic organization,Feed store,Florist shop,Food store,Furniture store, Handicraft,ceramic sculpture or similar artwork,Hardware or sporting goods store, Health studio or spa,Hobby shop,Jewelry store,Key shop,Laboratory,Laundry pickup station,Laundry,domestic cleaning,Lawn and garden center,enclosed, Library,art gallery,museum or similar public use,Lodge or fraternal organization, Medical appliance fittings and sales,Office (general or professional),Office showroom with warehouse (with retail sales,enclosed),Office equipment sales and service,Optical shop,Paint and wallpaper store,Pet shop,Photography studio,Private school,kindergarten or institution for special education,Retail uses not listed (enclosed),School (business),School (commercial,trade or craft), School (public or denominational),Secondhand store (used furniture or rummage shop),Shoe repair,Studio (art,music,speech,drama,dance or other artistic endeavors),Studio broadcasting and recording,Tailor,Taxidermist,Tool and equipment rental (inside display only),Travel bureau. The applicant is not proposing a change to the hours of operation or any site plan modifications as a part of this request. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is developed as a strip retail center.There are seven bays with four being occupied with a mixture of small scale retail uses (cleaners,Subway, beauty supply,gift shop).Other uses in the area include an office located on the northwest corner of Stagecoach Village Drive and Stagecoach Road.A Planned Development for Residential uses has been approved to the west of the site and is beginning to develop. The site has parking located both in front and rear of the building.Access to the site is taken from a single access point from Stagecoach Village Drive. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,Staff has received one phone call from an area resident.The Otter Creek Homeowners Association,Southwest Little Rock United for Progress,all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents,who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No comments. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. Entercny:No comment received. ARKLA:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Water:No objection. ~fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. CountOPlanning:No comment received. CATA:The site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has not effect on bus radius,turnout and route. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:No comment. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:This request is located in an area covered by the Otter Creek/Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The OC/CV Neighborhood Action Plan contains an Action Statement calling for the aggressive use of Planned Zoning Districts to influence more neighborhood- friendly and better quality development under the Office and Commercial Development Goal.The plan contains an Action Statement of limiting commercial and office development to a corridor along Stagecoach Road and between Baseline Road and Otter Creek Road.The plan also contains a statement of requiring businesses to be access by a loop street to minimize curb cuts and allow for attractive landscaping. Landsca e Issues:No comment. ~Bottdin Codes:teo comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(October 10,2002) The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant was requesting additional C-3 uses to be considered as alternative uses on the site.Staff stated they had contacted the applicant and were working to resolve concerns associated with a few of the requested uses.Staff stated they would continue to work with the applicant to resolve as many concerns as possible prior to the Public Hearing. There being no further items for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised list to Staff indicating uses,which the applicant and Staff agreed were acceptable,non-obtrusive uses to the neighborhood.The applicant has agreed there will be no outdoor display or sale of merchandise on the site.The hours of operation will remain as previously approved (8:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Saturday and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sunday). The applicant has also requested the center be allowed to be marketed to 100% commercial uses.Based on Shopping Center parking ratio (1 space per 225 square feet)the typical minimum parking requirement for the site would be 48 spaces.The 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.'-6178-F site has developed with 54 spaces,adequate to meet the typical minimum parking. Staff is supportive of the request to allow the site to be marketed as 100% commercial. The site is shown on the Future I and Use Plan as Mixed.The is to be a planned development if the use is entirely office or commercial.The applicant has met this criteria by filing for a PCD.The site is also a single lot of a larger PCD with has developed as office,commercial and residential.Staff feels the request to market the site as 100%commercial is an acceptable request due to the overall development pattern in the originally approved PCD. Otherwise,to Staffs knowledge;there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request to revise the previously approved planned development to allow the uses listed in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to revised the previously approved planned development to allow the listed uses in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site and to market the site to 100%commercial uses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(OCTOBER 31,2002) Mr.Olan Asbury was present representing the application.There was one objector present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request to revise the previously approved planned development to allow the listed uses in Paragraph A as alternative uses for the site and to market the site as 100%commercial uses. Mr.Asbury stated the site was a developed site.He stated the overall development consisted of 20+acres and was shown as Mixed on the Future Land Use Plan.He stated the commercial building was approved with a mix of commercial and office uses. Mr.Asbury stated with the proposed mix the development would not be allowed to develop to full potential.He stated with the entire area under ownership developing as a mix the need to hold the commercial site to a mixed use development was not as critical. Mr.David Henning spoke in opposition to the proposed development.He stated his disagreement was in principal.He stated the original PCD was approved with a ground mounted sign and the development had erected a pole mounted sign with back lighting. He stated the original approval also included the removal of the driveway for Lot 2 off of Stagecoach Road and onto Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Henning stated this had not 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO Z-6178-F happened and with the current street design it appeared the driveway was not going to be removed. Mr.Asbury stated the driveway was to be removed at the time Lot 2 was Final Platted. He stated a driveway to Lot 2 was in place on Stagecoach Village Drive.Mr.Asbury stated the driveway from Stagecoach Road was being used by truck traffic to develop the residential development to the west of the site.He stated when the applicant was ready to develop Lot 2 then the driveway would be removed from Stagecoach Road and access would be from the driveway that had been put in place from Stagecoach Village Drive. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the existing sign and the approved signage. Staff stated the previous PCD approved a single ground-mounted monument sign.Staff stated the request before the Commission did not include the sign issue. Mr.Asbury requested the item be deferred to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing to allow himself and Staff sufficient time to research the issue of signage with respect to the previously approved PCD. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the November 14,2002 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(NOVEMBER 14,2002) The applicant was not present.Staff stated the applicant had requested the item be deferred to the December 19,2002 Public Hearing to allow the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors concerning the sign issue.Staff stated the request would take a waiver of the By-Laws to allow the deferral. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to waive the By-laws to allow the deferral.The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent.A motion was then made to place the item on the Consent Agenda for deferral.The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes,0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was not present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant had submitted a letter to Staff on December 4,2002 requesting the application be withdrawn without prejudice.Staff stated they were supportive of the withdrawal request. 6 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6178-F There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for withdrawal.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 7 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:1 F I LE NO.:S-285-A NAME:Brimer Subdivision Replat LOCATION:On the south side of Mabelvale Cut-off and north of Brimer Street near the intersection of Mabelvale Cut-off,University and Woodbridge Streets DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Mystery Properties Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick P.O.Box 56403 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock,AR 72215 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:1.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,CUP PLANNING DISTRICT:15 CENSUS TRACT:41.05 VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:In-lieu contribution for street construction to Mabelvale Cut-off. BACKGROUND: On July 13,1982,the Planning Commission approved a two-lot plat (and a CUP for a Church on Lot A)for the Light House Baptist Temple Lots A and B.The plat was final platted and recorded December 1,1982.The current proposal includes the land area of Lot A,which has not developed.(Lot B was replatted into Courtney Subdivision.) A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to replat Lot A into eight (8)single-family residential lots. The lots will have street frontage on Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer Road.The lots average 7020 square feet;adequate to meet the minimum requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant proposes a 35-foot platted building line adjacent to Mabelvale Cut-off and a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to Brimer Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 1 Cont.FILE NO.:6-285-A The applicant has indicated right-of-way will be dedicated and one-half street improvements made to Brimer Road.The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication but is requesting an in-lieu contribution for street construction to Mabelvale Cut-off. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with a scattering of trees.Brimer Road is a narrow unimproved (no sidewalk)roadway with open ditches for drainage.Mabelvale Cut-off is an unimproved roadway also with open ditches for drainage.One-half street improvements have been made to the property located to the west of the site on Mabelvale Cut-off. There are single-family residences located in the immediate area with the homes south of Mabelvale Cut-off being on large lots.The homes north of Mabelvale Cut-off,in the Woodbridge Subdivision,are located on similar sized lots as the lots proposed.There is a relatively new single-family home located immediately west of the site. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The West Baseline Neighborhood Association and Southwest United for Progress, along with all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Mabelvale Cut-off is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required (the proposed dedication is acceptable). 2,Brimer Road is classified as a local street and a right-of-way width of 50-feet is acceptable. 3.Provide design of Brimer Street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.Provide contribution in-lieu of construction for Mabelvale Cut-off. 4.All residential lots should take driveway access from Brimer or a single access point on Mabelvale Cut-off. 5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 2 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 1 Cont.FILE NO.'-285-A E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is required for Lots 1 through 3.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection (s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. ~Fire Ce artment Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. ~Count Plannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:No comment. Landsca e Issues:No comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present representing the application.Staff gave an overview of the proposed development to the Subdivision Committee indicating there were additional items necessary on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the proposed source of water and the proposed means of wastewater disposal were needed in the General Notes of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the applicant was to include the number of lots and the average lot size in the General Notes as well. 3 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO '-285-A Staff stated there was a concern related to three driveway locations onto Mabelvale Cut-off and requested Mr.McGetrick try to minimize the number of driveway locations.Mr.McGetrick indicated the proposed development would have two driveway locations with Lots 2 and 3 sharing a driveway on the lot line and Lot 1's driveway would be located as far as feasible away from this break as possible.Staff requested Mr.McGetrick indicate the driveway locations on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated there were some concerns of the buildability of Lot 1 and requested Mr.McGetrick indicate on the proposed preliminary plat the buildable area of Lot 1. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater requesting Mr.McGetdick contact these agencies for additional information. There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. I L ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated in the General Notes the proposed source of water (Central Arkansas Water Association)and the proposed means of wastewater disposal (Little Rock Wastewater Utility).The applicant has also indicated the average lot size and the number of lots. The applicant has indicated on.the preliminary plat the proposed dedication of right-of-way to both streets,Brimer Road and Mabelvale Cut-off,and indicated street improvements will be made to Brimer Road.The applicant has also indicated an in-lieu contribution for Mabelvale Cut-off rather than street construction.Staff is supportive of this request. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, being greater than 60-feet in width and more than 7,000 square feet in area,as required for R-2,Single-family zoning. Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Although,the lots are somewhat smaller than the land area of homes located around the site,the lots average 7,020 square feet comparable to the lots to the north of the site in the Woodbridge Subdivision.The applicant has indicated the buildable area for Lot 1 and in that area it appears that a 1,800 —2,000 single-story home could be constructed on the lot. To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat for the Brimer Subdivision as presented. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 1 Cont FILE NO '-285-A I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street construction of Mabelvale Cut-off. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetdck Engineers was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present. Mr.McGetrick requested the item be deferred to the January 23,2003 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. 5 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1363 NAME:Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:9400 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT: ERC Development Group LLC The Hill Firm 815 Fort Street 222 South 16'"Street Barung,AR 72923 Fort Smith,AR 72901 AREA:10.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:MF-12 ALLOWED USES:Multi-family 12 units per acre PLANNING DISTRICT:15 CENSUS TRACT:41.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No.14,816 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 1985 rezoned this property to MF-12 along with four (4)additional parcels to various other zoning classifications.The plan included 50.4 acres of Multi-family zoning,12.6 acres of commercial zoning and 8.6 acres of office zoning. An application was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their April 4, 2002 Public Hearing requesting properties to the north of this site to be rezoned (a 100- foot utility easement)from R-2,Single-family to MF-12.The Little Rock Board of Directors later denied this request. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO S-1363 A.PROPOSAL/RQUEES: The applicant proposes to construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office.There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.Site amenities include a swimming pool and playground area. The building materials are proposed as wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding.The roof will be constructed of composition shingles. The applicant proposes Building Number 1 and 2 to be one story with the remainder of the buildings to be two-story.The applicant proposes six (6)of the one-story units to be one bedroom (721 square feet each)and four (4)of the one-story units to be two bedrooms (960 square feet each).The two-story structures proposed include two,three and four bedroom units.There are fifty- six (56)units (912 square feet each)of the two bedrooms and forty-eight (48) units (1085 square feet each)of the three bedrooms and eight (8)units (1288 square feet each)of the four bedrooms. The entire site will be landscaped and irrigated to comply with the Little Rock Landscape Ordinance.The applicant proposes the placement of a six (6)foot wooden fence around the north,south and western perimeters of the property with no fencing proposed along Stagecoach Road.There is a single non-gated entrance to the community with no traffic routed through any residential neighborhood.There is no parking proposed parallel to Stagecoach Road.The existing pond at the south side of the site will remain as a natural area. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant wooded,mostly flat site,with an abundance of undergrowth, There is a major transmission power line located to the north of the site and two churches located east of the site,across Stagecoach.There is a relatively new single-family subdivision located to the south of the site,Westfield,and undeveloped MF-12 zoned property located to the south of the subdivision. Other uses in the area include two parcels of vacant 0-1 zoned property to the east and vacant R-2 zoned property located to the southeast.To the north of the site are two PCD's;only one of which has developed and Stagecoach Village,a PRD in which single-family detached and attached housing is currently under construction. Stagecoach Road is a four-lane roadway complete with curb and gutter,and no center turn-lane at this location.There are not sidewalks in place adjacent to the site but are in place to the north and south of the site.There is an open drainage ditch located along the south property line. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.2 Cont FILE NO '-1363 C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Otter Creek Homeowners Association and Southwest United for Progress, along with all property owners within 200 feet of the site,were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,Staff has received several informational phone calls concerning the proposed development. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be required. 2.Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master Street Plan. 3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4.Plans for all works in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5.A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works. Also,contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to construction to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. 6.Contact the US Army Corps of Engineers,Little Rock District,for approval prior to start of work,regarding wetlands. 7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Easements for stormwater detention are required. 8.Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q)entering and leaving the property.Demonstrate adequate capacity of on-site and down stream structures to convey all storm water through the property. 9.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD District Vl. 10.Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width. Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet. 11.Provide any documentation or assurance,as required by State and Federal agencies or lending institutions,that the development will meet environmental,historic and cultural regulations. 12.Provide a left turn lane on Stagecoach Road into the proposed development. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to property line.Private sewer system including gravity mains,manholes,pump station and force main approved for on site.Capacity Contribution Analysis 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 required,contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water:The facilities on-site will be private.When meters are planned off private lines,private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer,licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required.A Capital Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.Meter sizes indicated appear to be larger than would be required for this development.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. ~Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.if the developer installs a gated entrance the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. DovntOCPlannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: ~ptannin Division:No comment. ~hendeca e:Areas set aside for land use and street huffers meet with ordinance requirements.However,it will be necessary to show placement of on-site utility easements.Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use buffer area. A total of seventy (70)percent of the land use buffers along the northern, southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed.The average width of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty- seven (27)feet and twenty-nine (29)feet along the western perimeter. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO S-1363 A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit,an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Paul Hill of the Hill Architectural Firm and Mr.Aaron Robinson of Bond Engineering Company were present representing the application.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development to the Committee members. Staff stated the proposed development was a subdivision multiple building site plan review.Staff stated this review was a technical review of the ordinance requirements. Staff stated there were general questions related to the proposed development, which would need to be indicated on the proposed site plan.Staff requested all easements on-site and adjoining the proposed development be indicated on the site plan.Staff also requested the applicant indicated the roof treatment,facade treatment and building materials along with the maximum building heights on the site plan. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign.The applicant indicated there would be a sign.Staff stated the sign along with details (height/area) should be indicated on the site plan.Staff questioned if the proposed development would be developed in phases or in one phase.The applicant stated the proposed development would be constructed in one phase. Staff questioned if one dumpster location was proposed.Mr.Hill stated the proposal included a trash compactor in one location.He stated this type collection system was currently being used at other locations and was working well. Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed drive was to be a maximum of 36-feet with 18-foot entrance lane width.Staff stated the proposed right-of-way indicated for Stagecoach Road was to be 45-feet from centerline in all locations.Staff stated in one area the right-of-way appeared to 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 be a "little short".Staff stated drainage on the site was very critical.Staff stated hydraulics for the highway culvert and water movement through the site were critical. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated all utility easements were necessary on the proposed site plan.Staff stated utility easements could not be counted as land use buffers.Staff stated the proposed development appeared to meet with the ordinance requirements but without the location of easements it was impossible to tell for certain: Staff stated it would be necessary to locate all trees 6-inch caliper and greater on the proposed site plan.Staff stated City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many trees as feasible on the site and extra credit could be given when properly preserving the trees of this caliper.Staff stated at least seventy percent (70%)of the land use buffer must be preserved. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater utility.Staff suggested the applicant contact each agency for specifics concerning their comments.There was some general discussion concerning the placement of fire hydrants.Staff stated the Little Rock Fire Department could clarify the placement. There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. FL ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised comments to Staff addressing some of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting but to date a revised site plan has not been received. Based on comment received the applicant has indicated the development will not be gated and there will not be any fencing along Stagecoach Road.A six (6)foot wooden fence will be placed along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. The applicant proposes the placement of a single-trash compactor location on the site.The applicant has indicated one central drop-off location for garbage has been successfully tried in other locations. Based on the initial drawings the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum required parking demand.The applicant is proposing to construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. 6 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:8-1363 There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 183 parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit. In addition,the applicant is proposing site amenities to include a swimming pool but has not indicated a playground area.These are items not regulated under the site plan review and not a requirement under the City's existing ordinances. The applicant has stated the exterior construction is proposed as a wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding.The applicant has indicated both one and two story buildings to be located on the site.The applicant proposes the maximum building height to be 35-feet.The proposal includes a roof treatment of composition shingles. The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground-mounted development sign to be located near the entry drive but the exact location has not been identified due to the lack of a revised site plan.The revised comments indicate the sign will be constructed of wood and masonry and be a maximum of eight (8) feet in length and five (5)feet in height or forty (40)square feet in area including the support columns.Allowable signage in multi-family zones is not to exceed twenty-four (24)square feet in area and six (6)feet in height not including the main supporting structure but all other ornamental attachments.Staff recommends the sign area denoting the complex not exceed the allowable sign area permitted in multi-family zones. The applicant has indicated there is an existing on-site detention pond,which will be utilized as a detention basin.The applicant has suggested the pond will remain in a natural state.Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to submit detailed drainage plans for review and approval. The applicant has indicated all drive lanes will be maintained at 18-feet and the proposed development will not be a gated community.The applicant has also indicated the maximum driveway width will be 36-feet as requested by Staff. At this writing,review is on-going regarding the drainage issues and the capacity of the AHTD culverts under Stagecoach Road. The requested site plan review is a technical review.From the comments received the applicant has indicated the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to building height,landscaping,land use buffering and parking ratios will be complied with.Without a revised drawing it is difficult for Staff to make this determination.Staff has requested all on-site and off-site easements be indicated on the site plan.As per the ordinance easements are not allowed to count as land use buffers.As indicated in the 7 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 landscape comments section the areas set aside appear to meet the minimum requirements. The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as multi-family.The proposed development density is consistent with the existing zoning. The applicant has tried to minimize the negative impacts of surrounding existing residential neighborhoods by placing the buildings within the development away from the southern property line and has indicated they will preserve as many existing trees and as much existing vegetation as feasible during the development.This would further buffer the existing single-family homes in the adjoining neighborhood to the south. If in fact,all the issues raised above are met to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for the subdivision multiple building site plan review as presented.Staff recommends approval of the request should the applicant comply with land use buffers,compliance with signage allowable in multi-family zones and that the development will meet environmental,historic and cultural regulations. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan in response to Subdivision Committee review.Staff does not anticipate that there will be substantial changes in the site plan.However,Staff is withholding their recommendation until such time as the revised site plan is submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19 2002) Mr.Paul Hill was present representing the application.There were objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was given a condition after Subdivision Committee Meeting, the addition of a turn lane,which he had not been able to resolve.Staff stated the applicant was required to resubmit revised plans within one (1)week of Subdivision Committee meeting or the item was deferred.Staff stated the applicant was not notified of the turn lane until four (4)days before the Commission meeting not allowing him sufficient time to resolve the issue.Staff stated if the applicant was required to "play by the rules"then the City should also be required to "play by the rules".Staff stated the applicant was working with a traffic engineer to determine the traffic counts in the area and less than one (1)week was not sufficient time to generate traffic counts.Staff stated a deferral request was not out of line in this case since the applicant was not given ample notice to resolve the turn lane concern. There was limited discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 2003 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and 2 absent. 8 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:S-1364 NAME:Lawson Road Mini-storage Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:15700 Lawson Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Rick Millerick Donald W.Brooks,Inc. 15401 Woodstone Drive 20820 Arch Street Pike Roland,AR 72135 Hensley,AR 72065 AREA:2.01 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:l-3,Industrial district ALLOWED USES:Industrial PLANNING DISTRICT:18 CENSUS TRACT:42.10 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:Deferral of the hard surface parking area until Phase II develops. A.P ROPOSAL/RE VEST: The site is currently zoned 1-3 and located in front of the "old rock plant".The applicant proposes to construct two (2)single-story mini-warehouse buildings and a single-story security office/resident managers unit (maximum height 20-feet)on the site immediately and five (5)mini-warehouse buildings in the future.The applicant proposes all the mini-storage units to be constructed of non-reflective colors and the maximum building height of nine (9)feet. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1364 The applicant is proposing gravel drives and parking areas with Phase I.The applicant has requested a deferral of the hard-surface parking area and has indicated the hard-surface parking area would be constructed with Phase II. The proposed site plan indicated dedication of right-of-way as required per the Master Street Plan.The applicant is proposing the placement of landscaping along the road right-of-way and the eastern and western property lines as required by the ordinance.The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground mounted sign to be located along the western property line within the landscaped area.The sign will be a maximum of 12-feet in height and 32 square feet in area. The applicant proposes one (1)employee,who will live on site.The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be seven (7)days per week and from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant site with dirt work in process.The site is a former quarry with the bluff being to the north of the site.Other uses in the immediate area include a concrete plant,welding and a storage site.The site is surrounded with a six (6) foot chain link fence with barbed wire located on the top. The area is primarily undeveloped and very rural.There is a large tract of 0-2 zoned vacant property located to the west of the site and small piece of 1-1 zoned property located to the east of the site.Near the site is the Crystal Hill Church located on the east side of Crystal Valley Road and the Church's Family Life Center located on the west side of Crystal Valley Road.There is also a general office located on 0-3 zoned property located near the intersections of Lawson Road and Crystal Valley Road. Lawson Road is an unimproved two lane roadway with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalk. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners within 200-feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. There is not an active neighborhood association near the site.As of this writing, staff has not received any comment from area residents. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.;S-1364 D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Lawson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Outside service boundary.No comment. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Central Arkansas Water:The Fire Department having jurisdiction needs,to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense. FFire De Fartment:Place fire hydrants per code.If the developer installs a gated entrance,the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. C~ount Plannin:County Staff requires submission of a plat that has a surveyor and an engineering stamp that shows all standard information,a Bill of Assurance and a summary of the development plan.If the engineer/surveyor needs a copy of the County Rules and Regulations contact Pulaski County Planning Staff at 340-8267. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: ~ptannin Division:No comment. ~hendeca e:A twenty-three (23t foot wide on-site street buffer is required along Lawson Road.Additionally,a nine (9)foot wide landscape strip will be required along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the first fifty (50)feet from the right-of-way of Lawson Road. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 Cont.FILE NO.S-1364 G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Rick Millerick was present representing the application.Mr.Jim Narey, Director of Planning Pulaski County,and Ms.Lou Dreher,Project Coordinator Pulaski County,were in attendance to discuss the County comments related to the proposed development. Staff gave a brief overview of the proposed development and indicated there were additional items needed on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the requested waiver of right-of-way dedication would not be supported and suggested the applicant rethink his request.Staff stated the request for a deferral of the hard surface parking area was a feasible request. Staff stated the fencing was currently located within the right-of-way and a franchise agreement would be required to allow the fence to remain in its current location.The applicant stated his intention was to replace the fence,at which time,the fence would be relocated outside the right-of-way. Staff requested the days and hours of operation be indicated on the site plan. Staff stated if the applicant intended to utilize an on-site dumpster it would be necessary to locate the dumpster on the site plan along with the required screening.Staff stated a phasing plan was needed on the site plan to indicate at which point the future buildings would be added to the site. Mr.Narey addressed the County comments stating the County would require the site to be platted.He stated Staff would work with the applicant to address all the relevant information needed on the plat.He stated the County would require a registered surveyor or engineer stamp for final approval. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the street buffer should be twenty-three (23)feet.Staff questioned if the units would be double or single loaded units.Staff stated if the units were single loaded then the driveway adjacent to Lawson Road could be removed.The applicant stated the units would be double loaded and the driveway adjacent to Lawson Road was necessary to access the units.Staff stated a nine (9)foot wide landscape strip would be required along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the first fifty (50)feet from the new right-of-way line for Lawson Road. There was no further discussion.The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO..3 Cont FILE NO '-1364 H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated the new right-of-way line for Lawson Road on the proposed site plan along with the required dedication of right-of-way The applicant proposes the placement of two rows of mini-warehouse buildings, both double loading in Phase I along with an office/resident managers building. The site will be gated with a single access from Lawson Road.The gate will maintain the requested 20-foot opening of the Little Rock Fire Department. The second phase will include the construction of five (5)additional buildings.All buildings will be constructed with non-reflective metal roofs.The applicant proposes the maximum building height of the office/residence to be 20-feet. The applicant has proposed landscaping adjacent to Lawson Road somewhat consistent with the ordinance requirement.The applicant has indicated a landscape strip of 15 feet in which the applicant has proposed the placement of crape myrtles and shrubs.The applicant has also proposed the placement of a nine-foot strip along the eastern and western perimeters of the site for the first 50 feet as required by the ordinance.Staff is supportive of the landscaping plan for the site. The signage proposed,four (4)foot by eight (8)foot and a maximum of twelve (12)feet in height is consistent with signage allowable in industrial zones.Staff is supportive of the placement of the proposed signage in the front landscaped area along the western property line. The applicant is also proposing a six (6)foot wooden fence along the east and west property lines with a six (6)foot black chain link fence along the road right- of-way.The proposed fencing is consistent with fencing allowed per the zoning ordinance for industrial zones. Staff is supportive of the requested Subdivision Site Plan Review.The proposed development is a multiple building site plan review,a technical review,in which the applicant has met most of the requirements of the Ordinance.The applicant is however,requesting a deferral of the hard-surface parking and driveway lanes until Phase II develops.The applicant has indicated the paving will be disturbed when Phase II is developed and is requesting to be allowed to install all paving at one time.Staff feels this is a reasonable request.The applicant has indicated Phase II will be in the near future therefore;the paving will not be deferred for an 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 3 Cont FILE NO S-1364 indefinite period of time.Staff feels a two (2)year deferral,or until such a time that Phase II develops,is a reasonable amount of time for the paving of the drive lanes and parking areas. The applicant is continuing to work with County Planning to resolve the County comments in Section E of this report.The applicant has satisfied the City' requirements and should be allowed to proceed with the Public Hearing of his request.Staff feels this is an acceptable request but Staff recommends the applicant not be allowed zoning clearance to begin construction until he has secured an approval letter from County Planning. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan review subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E,F and H of this report.The applicant will not be given zoning clearance to begin construction until the applicant has secured all necessary approvals from County Planning. Staff recommends approval of the deferral of the hard surface parking area for two (2)years or until such time as Phase II develops,whichever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was present.There were no objectors present.Staff stated the applicant was continuing to work with the County Staff to resolve the issues indicated in paragraph E of the above Staff Report.Staff stated to their knowledge there were no other outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.Staff stated the proposed development complied with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for a multiple building site plan review.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request for Lawson Road Mini-storage Site Plan Review subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. Staff stated the applicant was requesting a deferral of the hard surface parking area for two years or until Phase II developed.Staff stated they also recommended approval of the request for a deferral of the hard surface parking area for two (2)years or until such time as Phase II develops,whichever occurs first. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 6 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-7325 NAME:Lot 1 Section "A"Wildwood Subdivision Short-form POD LOCATION:Southeast corner of Cantrell Road and South Katillus Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Charlotte Murphy McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 16719 Cantrell Road 319 President Clinton Avenue,Suite 202 Little Rock,AR 72227 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:0.42 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family residences PROPOSED ZONING:POD PROPOSED USE:Office —General and Professional VARIANCEShNAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAURE VEST: The applicant proposes to rezone this 0.42-acre site to POD to allow the site to redevelop as a general and/or professional office use.The site contains a vacant single-family residence,which the applicant proposes to convert to a general or professional office.The applicant will remove one of the existing driveways,the drive nearest the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road and maintain the other existing drive nearer the south property line.All fencing on the site is to remain and a six (6)foot wooden fence will be added to the south property line adjacent to the single-family zoned property, December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.4 Cont.FILE NO '-7325 The applicant proposes to placement of five (5)parking spaces in the rear of the structure with the existing metal storage building to remain. The applicant is requesting a reduced design standard as related to the Highway 10 Overlay District with regard to landscaping.This request is consistent with the Overlay requirements for a lot of this size. The applicant proposes the hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a vacant single-family structure located on the southeast corner of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road.There is an existing storage building located in the rear of the structure near the east property line.The site is accessed from South Katillus Road. Other uses in the area include,two previously approved POD's one containing a law office and the second containing a beauty shop/tanning salon.There is a single-family residence with a horse riding stable and barns located to the south of the site.This site was recently reviewed and approved by the Commission as a 60 lot plat for patio home construction. There is a PCD,Texaco Quick Stop Station to the northwest and a mixture of single-family homes both stick built and manufactured homes located to the northeast of the site along North Katillus Road. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident.All property owners located within 200 feet of the site,all residents located within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and the Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.The right-of-way widths as shown on the plan meet Master Street Plan requirements.However,a 20-foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road. 2.Remove all existing improvements located within the right-of-way including concrete slab and fencing. 3.Close the northern most driveway.Locate new driveway to parking area,as far as practicable,from the intersection of Cantrell Road. 2 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7325 4.Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan (South Katillus Road).Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is required for the project.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. CentralArkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s)are required.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense. ~Fire De artmenh Approved as suhmiited. ~Count Piannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Transition for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for general and professional office uses.The request is consistent with the POD part of Transition. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ~hendeca e:A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the southern perimeter of the site. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 4 Cont FILE NO.'-7325 It is recommended that trees be planted every twenty (20)feet within the landscape buffer along Cantrell Road. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick an McGetrick Engineers was present representing the application.Staff presented a brief overview of the proposed development to the Committee members.Staff stated the proposed site plan did not include any parking and questioned if the applicant would consider adding parking to the rear of the structure.Staff stated there were also concerns with the applicant requesting the entire listing of 0-3 uses.Staff stated the applicant should reconsider the selected uses to only include those uses,which were not parking intensive.Mr.McGetrick stated his client envisioned the site developing as a general and/or professional office type uses. Staff stated the driveway nearest the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road should be removed to eliminate potential safety concerns.Staff stated when the applicant was reviewing the placement of a rear parking area to consider moving the second existing driveway to the south,nearer the property line,to allow for the parking design to pull into the rear of the structure.Staff stated this would eliminate headlights shining into the adjoining single-family properties to the south.Staff stated the Commission reviewed a plat for a few months back and it appeared the applicant of that site was working toward final platting the single-family properties to the south. Staff requested the applicant indicate the days and hours of operation on the site plan and questioned if a dumpster would be utilized.The applicant stated there would not be an on-site dumpster. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed site would require relief from the Highway 10 Overlay District due to the small size of the site.Staff stated it was recommended a tree be planted every twenty (20)feet within the landscape buffer along Cantrell Road.Staff stated along the southern perimeter a six (6)foot wooden fence would be required to screen the adjoining single-family zoned properties. Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the indicated right-of-way met with Master Street Plan requirement but a twenty (20)foot radial dedication would be required at the intersection of South Katillus Road and Cantrell Road. Staff stated the proposed development would possible meet the hardship clause of the ordinance and an in-lieu contribution was possible as an alternative to street construction.Staff also stated it would be necessary to remove any fencing or parking located within the right-of-way. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.4 Cont FILE NO '-7325 After the discussion with no further items to discuss,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated five (5)parking spaces in the rear of the structure,one of which is utilizing the existing covered parking pad on the site.The proposed parking is more than sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking requirements per the zoning ordinance (3 spaces typically required). The applicant has also indicated the removal of the northern driveway,as requested by Staff,on the revised site plan.The parking will be accessed via the southern driveway and the spaces pull directly into the site.The property to the east is zoned non-residentially thus minimizing the negative impacts of headlights shining into homes.The parking spaces are also located away from the single-family zoned property to the south also lessening any potential negative impacts.Staff is supportive of the parking arrangement as proposed. The applicant has indicated there will be a single ground mounted sign,which will comply with signage allowable in office zones (64-square feet in area and a maximum of six (6)feet in height).The applicant has indicated the proposed signage will be located in the landscaped area of the front yard.Staff is supportive of the signage as proposed. The applicant has indicated all existing fencing will remain on the site and the applicant has also indicated a six (6)foot wooden fence will be added to the south property line.The addition of this fencing will screen the adjacent single- family zoned property to the south. The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday.The proposed hours of operation are consistent with days and hours of operation of neighboring businesses and Staff is supportive of the requested operational hours. The applicant has requested an in-lieu contribution for street construction of South Katillus Road.The applicant has indicated the dedication of the required right-of-way on the proposed site plan but has indicated the cost of street construction far exceeds the cost of rehabbing the structure for an office user. Staff is supportive of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street construction of South Katillus Road. Staff is supportive of the request to rezone the site from R-2,Single-family to POD to allow the site to develop as an office use.The applicant has proposed 5 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7325 general and/or professional office users,which typically generate lower volumes of traffic.The site is shown as Transitional on the Future Land Use Plan,which allows for office uses if developed through a planned development.This request is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan in that it has been filed as a planned development.The proposed signage,parking and landscaped areas are consistent with ordinance requirements and the Highway 10 Design Overlay District requirements.Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request.Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the site to Planned Office Development. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning to a Planned Office Development to allow professional and/or general office uses to locate on the site subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street construction to South Katillus Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning to a Planned Office Development to allow professional and/or general office uses to locate on the site subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. Staff stated they also recommended approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street construction of South Katillus Road as requested by the applicant. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 6 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:Z-7326 NAME:Lieblong Short-form PD-0 LOCATION;12900 Crystal Valley Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Daniel Lieblong Troy Laha 12900 Crystal Valley Road 6602 Baseline Road Suite E Little Rock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72209 AREA:1.57 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,Single-family ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING:PD-0 PROPOSED USE:Dentist Office VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the site from R-2,Single-family to PD-0 to allow the construction of a new one-story building (3680 square feet),with a full basement,to house a dental office for one (1)dentist.The applicant has indicated 18 parking spaces to be located adjacent to Crystal Valley Road.The applicant has also indicated a drive to extend to the rear of the structure and space for parking of two (2)vehicles.The applicant has indicated the doctor and a staff person will utilize the two (2)rear spaces. December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 Cont FILE NO '-7326 The applicant proposes the placement of a single four (4)foot high by six (6)foot wide lighted sign located near the southern driveway in the landscaped area. The applicant has indicated there will not be a dumpster located on the site.The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday through Saturday.The applicant has also indicated any site lighting will be low level and directional,aimed away from residentially zoned properties. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant site with a scattering of trees.The site is a steep site, sloping from the northeast to the southwest.There are new single-family homes located to the north of the site and a single-family subdivision located to the west of the site.Street improvements have been made to Crystal Valley Road adjacent to the single-family subdivision,on the west side of Crystal Valley Road, complete with sidewalk but no street improvements have been made adjacent to the subject site. Other uses in the area include a used car dealership,a church,an auto repair center and new construction of a car dealership all located on Stagecoach Road near the intersection of Crystal Valley Road. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has not received any comment from area residents.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and Southwest United for Progress were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Crystal Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline will be required. 2.Provide design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan, Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development. 3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance, 4.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to the start of work. 5.Grading permits will be required for this development. 6.The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies to this property. 2 December 19,z002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-7326 E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main available,not adversely affected. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water Due to the nature of the processes used in this facility (dental office),installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly installed prior to the first outlet will be required on the domestic water service.Contact Carrol Keatts,Central Arkansas Water' Cross Connection Program Administrator at 992-2431 for additional details. ~Fire De artment:Approved as submitted. CountOCPlannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Crystal Valley Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Suburban Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Office Development for a dentist office consistent with Suburban Office. Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Otter Creek /Crystal Valley Neighborhood Action Plan.The Office and Commercial Development goal supports limiting office developments to the "heart"of the study area located on Stagecoach Road between Baseline and Otter Creek Roads. ~Landsca e:The proposed land use buffer along a portion of the northern perimeter drops below the nine (9)foot minimum allowed at any given point. A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern,southern and eastern perimeter of the site. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO '-7326 Curb and gutter,or another approved border,will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Troy Laha,Laha Engineers,was present representing the applicant.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating the property was shown on the Future Land Use Plan for a suburban office type use.Staff stated there were additional items which would need to be shown on the proposed site plan.Staff requested the applicant indicate the days and hours of operation,any proposed signage,the number of doctors and the number of employees and any proposed dumpster location. There was a general discussion concerning the parking lot placement.The Committee noted with the proximity to residential housing,the parking placement in the rear or to the side of the structure would be a better alternative from a design standpoint.Staff stated the building should also have a residential character as well.Mr.Laha stated he would explore the alternative of moving the parking area.He stated with the topography of the site the parking in the front of the structure would be the most feasible and would not be as unsightly from the road as one might think. Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed right-of-way dedication would be 45-feet from the centerline of Crystal Valley Road per the Master Street Plan requirement.Staff stated all driveways were to be concrete aprons per City Ordinance.Staff stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the site therefore,the applicant would be required to provide on- site detention. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated some of the areas proposed as land use buffers dropped below the minimum nine (9)feet required per the Zoning Ordinance.Staff stated screening would be required along the eastern,northern and southern boundaries of the site.Staff also stated curb and gutter,or another approved border,would be required to protect the landscaped areas from vehicular traffic.Staff stated the applicant would be required an irrigation system to water landscaped areas as well. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water stating the applicant should contact the water department for additional information.There were no further issues for discussion.The Committee,then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO '-7326 H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The applicant has indicated a nine (9)foot wide landscape buffer along the northern property line as required per the zoning ordinance. The applicant has also indicated street improvements would be made to Crystal Valley Road per the Master Street Plan requirement.The revised site plan indicates the required dedication of right-of-way and the planned five (5)foot sidewalk.The applicant has also indicated on-site detention as per the Stormwater Detention Ordinance. The applicant proposes the days and hours of operation to be 7:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday through Saturday.The proposed hours are consistent with a dentist office use. The applicant has indicated fencing along the north and east property lines.The fencing is proposed as a six (6)foot wooden fence with the face side directed outward.The applicant has also indicated a nine (9)foot wide landscape buffer along the northern perimeter of the site and landscaping along the street right-of- way.The applicant proposes to retain some existing trees on the site per the recommendation of the City Beautiful Commission. The applicant proposes the placement of eighteen (18)parking spaces on the site along with two additional spaces near the rear of the structure.The typical minimum parking requirement for a dentist office with one doctor would be six (6) spaces (one space per doctor).The proposed parking is more than sufficient to meet the typical minimum parking requirement. The applicant proposes the placement of one development sign to be located near the driveway in the front landscaped area.The proposed signage is consistent with signage allowed in office zones or four (4)foot in height and six (6)feet in width or twenty-four (24)square feet in area. Staff is supportive of the proposed development.The applicant has revised the site plan to lessen any negative impact on the single-family to the west and to the north of the site.The single-story office building,which will appear residential in character,should blend with the neighborhood.The applicant has indicated site lighting will be directional,aimed away from residentially zoned properties. The request is consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan,Suburban Office. Otherwise,to Staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. 5 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 Cont.FILE NO'-7326 I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request to Planned Development —Office to allow the construction of a dentist office on the site subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Dr.Lieblong and Troy Laha were present representing the application.There were objectors registered to speak on the issue.Staff questioned if the objectors were still present.The Chairman indicated only one,Ms.Janet Berry of Southwest United for Progress.Ms.Berry stated she had indicated on the card she did not wish to address the Commission concerning the issue. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed development.Staff stated they had received a letter stating opposition to the proposed development and referenced the Bill of Assurance.Staff stated the Commission did not normally undertake Bill of Assurance issues.Staff stated they recommended approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. There was no further discussion concerning the application.A motion was made to approve the development as proposed.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,0 noes and 5 absent. 6 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:Z-7327 NAME:Shear Magic Short-form PCD LOCATION:1911 West 2"'treet DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Carolyn J.Miller Ollen Dee Wilson 8201 Cantrell Road,Suite 225 P.O.Box 604 Little Rock,AR 72227 North Little Rock,AR 72115 AREA:0.13Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family District ALLOWED USES:Residential (Existing Duplex) PROPOSED ZONING:PCD PROPOSED USE:Mixture of Commercial (Beauty Shop)and Residential Uses VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the site to Planned Commercial Development (PCD)to convert an existing duplex to a mix of commercial and residential uses, The applicant proposes one unit be used as a residence and the second unit would be used Tuesday through Saturday as a one chair,single operator,beauty salon (approximately 900 square feet).The applicant proposes the days of operation to be Tuesday through Saturday from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. The applicant proposes the placement of two (2)parking spaces on the site located in the rear of the structure adjacent to the alley.The applicant is not December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 6 Cont FILE NO '-7327 proposing any signage as a part of the development except signage on the building facade indicating the entrance on the unit,which will house the beauty salon. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is an existing duplex with parking being utilized in the rear yard of the structure.There are both non-residential and residential uses located in the area with a multi-tenant multi-family structure located to the west of the site,a converted single-family structure to a multiple tenant structure located to the north of the site,a boarded and abandoned single-family structure located to the east of the site and a photography studio located south of the site.Gary Huston Electric is located to the south and east of the site with his lot and fencing extending to West 2"Street and commercial vehicles are being parked in this area.There are sin~le-family homes located in the area;west of Summit Street and north of West 2"Street. The streets in the area (Battery Street and West 2"'treet)are narrow unimproved roadways with Battery Street being no wider than an alley at the rear of the site. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call from an area resident.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and the Capitol View/Stifft Station Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1,With parking lot construction,improve Battery and West 2"'treets per Master Street Plan.Improvements may qualify for a contribution in-lieu of construction under the hardship clause of the ordinance. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 'Cont FILE NO '-7327 Southwestern Bell:No comment received. CentralArkansas Water:Contact Central Arkansas Water if larger and/or additional water meter(s)are required.Due to the nature of the processes used in this facility (beauty shop),installation of an approved backflow preventer assembly will be required on the domestic water service.Contact Carrol Keatts,Central Arkansas Water's Cross Connection Program Administrator at 992-2431 for additional details. ~Fire De artment:Approved as submitted. ~Count Ptannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is on Bus Routes ¹1 and ¹8 and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Commercial Development for a beauty shop and a residence in an existing structure. This application is an existing structure and does not change the footprint.It also is a Planned Zoning District in which the use applied for is permitted in Office. The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan,which would necessitate a Plan Amendment.A land use plan amendment is not necessary. Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Capital View /Stifft Station Neighborhood Action Plan. The Community Preservation goal listed an objective of preserving the housing stock in the neighborhood that is supported by an action statement calling for the no net loss of housing units due to changes in land use. ~randsca e:No comment. G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Ms.Carolyn Miller was present representing the application.Staff gave an overview of the proposed development indicating parking was a concern of Staff. Staff questioned if the proposed development would utilize city garbage collection or if the site would contain a dumpster.The applicant indicated there would not be a dumpster located on the site.Staff stated the site was a small site and the desire of Staff was to maintain the residential integrity of the site. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:6 Cont.FILE NO '-7327 Staff suggested the applicant consider paving a two car parking pad in the rear of the structure and utilizing street parking on West 2'treet for the additional spaces necessary to meet the typical minimum parking requirement under the ordinance. Staff stated the site was bordered by non-residential uses to the south and a multi-family use to the west.Staff stated the streets in the area were minimal at best.Staff stated near the rear of the structure Battery Street narrowed to near the width of an alley.Staff stated the improvements would possibly qualify for an in-lieu contribution rather than the full one-half street improvements. Comments from Central Arkansas Water were noted and Staff suggested the applicant contact this agency for additional information.There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. I L ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to Staff addressing the issues raised by the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated two (2)parking spaces to be located in the rear of the structure accessed from Battery Street, The applicant is proposing a 20-foot by 20-foot concrete parking pad located in the rear of the structure.The proposed parking will back into Battery Street. Staff is supportive of allowing this since Battery Street in this area has relatively few automobiles and the multi-family across the street is also backing into the street. The proposed parking is not sufficient to meet the minimum parking requirement for a beauty shop and a duplex but staff is supportive of the reduced number of parking spaces.The unit will remain residential on one side and the second will only have minor modifications to allow the beauty shop to operate.Staff feels that at some point in the future,should the applicant desire to return the second unit to residential,too much paving would lessen the desirability of the structure and give the feel of a non-residential use.Staff feels with a single-chair beauty shop the clients will be limited to one entering and one leaving thus the times when two (2)customers are present will be relatively short.Staff feels that parking on West 2"Street should be allowed since the street is not a through street and the structure under consideration is currently the last occupied structure with a 2"Street relationship. The applicant proposes the days of operation to be Tuesday through Saturday from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm.The applicant anticipates most evening the hours will be limited to 6:00 pm but would like the flexibility that should a client have an emergency she would be able to assist them with their needs.Staff is supportive of the proposed hours of operation. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.6 Cont.FILE NO Z-7327 Staff feels the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood.The proposed development is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan in that a beauty shop is an allowable use,as a Conditional Use,in office zoning.The uses adjacent to the site to the south are somewhat more intense than the proposed use;a liquor store,an electrical company and a photography studio.Across Battery Street to the west is an eight (8)unit multi- family complex and the residential structure to the north across West 2"Street appears to be a multi-family unit as well.An office use is located across West 2"'treettothenorthwestofthesite,a law office,in a converted residential structure. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Commercial Development subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street improvements to Battery Street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff stated they had received one letter in support of the proposed development from the Capitol View Stilft Station Neighborhood Association. Staff stated to their knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed development.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request to rezone the site to PCD subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street improvements to Battery Street. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 5 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-7328 NAME:EmbraSuen,LLC Short-form PD-R LOCATION:On the northwest corner of Woodlawn Street and North Taylor Street DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: EmbraSuen,LLC Dixion Surveying 5410 Stonewall Road 306 North Springfield Little Rock,AR 72207 Plummerville,AR 72127 AREA:0.38 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-3,Single-family district ALLOWED USES:Single-family residential PROPOSED ZONING:PD-R PROPOSED USE:Single-family residential VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to replat four lots (Lots 11,12,13 8 14)into two (2)lots (Lots 11R &11RR)Block 20,Lincoln Park Subdivision.The proposed Lot 11R contains an existing single-family structure and would become 120-feet by 90-feet and will remain facing east towards Taylor Street.The proposed Lot 11RR would be 50-foot by 120-foot and would face Woodlawn.The proposed replat would result in a 7.1 foot rear yard setback from the west property line for the existing residence on proposed Lot 11R. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 7 Cont FILE NO '-7328 The applicant proposes to leave the existing structure (including existing ingress) in tact on proposed Lot 11R.The applicant is proposing to remove the structure on proposed Lot 11RR and construct a 1615 square foot two-story,frame residence with a west side yard setback of 9.2 feet and an east side yard setback of 8.8 feet.The proposed driveway for the property will be from the south,off Woodlawn. The applicant is proposing a wooden fence to separate the two properties along the common property line of Lots 11R and 11RR.The fence is proposed at four (4)feet within the building setback and six (6)feet along the remainder of the property line. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains two single-family structures,one a guesthouse and the other occupied as single-family.There is a drainage ditch located along the west property line with the secondary house located adjacent to the property line and a one and one-half (1.5)foot setback rear yard setback.The guesthouse structure is a wooden structure in good repair.The second structure,the primary structure is a brick and frame house located on the corner of these streets facing Taylor Street.The structure has a double car carport with the loading from Taylor Street. Woodlawn has been constructed with curb and gutter in place and no sidewalks. Taylor is a narrow roadway with ditch swales for drainage.The road surface is chip seal and no sidewalks are in place. There is a church immediately east of the site across Taylor and a duplex immediately south of the site across Woodlawn.The remainder of the area is primarily single-family with a scattering of duplex units. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.All property owners within 200 feet of the site,all residents within 300 feet of the site,who could be identified and the Hillcrest Residents Neighborhood Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Public Works:No comment. 2 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.7 Cont FILE NO Z-7328 E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,to serve 604 North Taylor Street.Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Southwestern Bell has buried cable in the north right-of-way of Woodlawn.Locate all utilities before excavating.Contact South Western Bell Telephone Company at 373-5112 for additional details. CentralArkansas Water Lot 11RR must take water service off the existing water main in Woodlawn Street.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. ~stre De artment:Approved as submitted. ~donut Piannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is located on Bus Route ¹8 and is near Routes ¹1 and ¹12 but has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Heights/Hillcrest Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property.The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for single family uses.The request is consistent with the I and Use of Single Family. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Hillcrest Neighborhood Action Plan.The Housing Goal of establishing design guidelines for the Hillcrest are encourages the use of Planned Unit Developments to address issues such as area/site ratio,density, height regulations,and set backs in order to preserve the unique character of the Hillcrest neighborhood. ~bandana e:No comment. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 7 Cont.FILE NO Z-7328 G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Ms.Julie Embra was present representing the application.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating additional information was needed on the proposed site plan.Staff stated the applicant should indicate on the site plan any existing fencing which was to remain along with the type material and height.Staff also stated their recommendation was to leave the structure at the 25-foot building line and sacrifice the tree since 15-feet would not allow for sufficient automobile parking in the driveway.Staff also suggested the applicant consider the placement of a double driveway since Woodlawn did not allow for street parking. Staff noted the comment from Little Rock Wastewater.Staff indicated the applicant should contact wastewater to try and resolve this issue.Staff stated in most situations wastewater would not allow the crossing of private property with a service line to serve another residence. There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised plans to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated a two (2)car drive on Lot 11RR as requested by Staff.The applicant has also indicted a 24-foot building line for Lot 11RR which is somewhat consistent with the current required building line.Staff is supportive of the requested building line since most of the structures along Woodlawn are nearer the street and with the 24-foot building line there is sufficient room for parking in the proposed driveway. The applicant proposes to replat the four (4)lots into two (2)lots.The proposed Lot 11R contains an existing single-family structure and the dimension would become 120-foot by 90-foot.The lot will maintain access from Taylor Street. The proposed Lot 11RR would be 50-foot by 120-foot and access will be from Woodlawn.The proposed lot sizes are consistent with minimum required square footages of R-3 zoned properties (5000 square feet minimum). The proposed replat would result in a 7.1 foot rear yard setback from the west property line of the existing residence on proposed Lot 11R.Rear yard setbacks are a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance thus would not require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:7 Cont.FILE NO.'-7328 The applicant proposes to leave the existing structure (including existing ingress) in tact on proposed Lot 11R.The applicant is proposing to remove the structure on proposed Lot 11RR and construct a 1615 square foot two-story,frame residence with a west side yard setback of 9.2 feet and an east side yard setback of 8.8 feet.Proposed ingress to the property will be from the south,off Woodlawn,via a two car driveway. The applicant is proposing a wooden fence to separate the two properties along the common property line of Lots 11R and 11RR.The fence is proposed at four (4)feet within the building setback and six (6)feet along the remainder of the property line. To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for rezoning or the request to replat the lots into two individual lots,each to contain a single-family structure.The area is predominately single- family on smaller lots and the applicant is proposing a plan consistent with the development pattern of the area.Staff feels the proposed development should have minimal,if any,adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed planned development as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. Staff recommends approval of the proposed replat of the property.The applicant will be required to submit a final plat prior to obtaining a building permit for the structure located on Lot 11RR. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) The applicant was present representing the application.There were no objectors present.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed planned development as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the proposed replat of the property.Staff stated the applicant would be required to submit a final plat prior to obtaining a building permit for the structure located on Lot 11RR. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 5 December 19,2002 ITEM NO.:8 FILE NO.:Z-6232-E NAME:The Villages at Rahling Road (Lot 10B)Revised PCD LOCATION:Rahling Circle DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates ¹7 Chenal Circle ¹24 Rahling Circle Little Rock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223 AREA:0.53 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:C-2 Permitted uses PROPOSED ZONING:Revised PCD PROPOSED USE:Office VARIANCESiWAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: On August 5,1997,the Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No.17,542 which established The Village at Rahling Road PCD.The PCD established a 14 lot development with C-2 uses being permitted.The initial action approved a site plan for Lots 1 and 2 of the development with the intent being that each of the remaining lots would be brought to the Commission on an individual basis as a particular development was proposed.Subsequent actions have been approved to allow four small buildings on the properties immediately west of the site. December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.;Z-6232-E A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant now proposes to revise the PCD to allow the construction of a 3895 square foot office building with a 1242 square foot area for future expansion on unrecorded Lot 10B.The applicant has indicated the site will be used as a medical office type use (physical therapy).The applicant has indicated there will be two (2)doctors utilizing the facility.The applicant proposes the placement of 17 parking spaces in the rear of the building to be accessed by a shared 30-foot Public Access Easement located on the west property line between Lots 10A and 10B.The applicant has indicated the building height will not exceed 35-feet. The applicant has indicated the days and hours of operation to be from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm six (6)days per week.The applicant has also indicated signage will comply with city ordinance standard for office zones (not to exceed six (6)feet in height and 64 square feet in area)and the architectural design elements of "The Village of Rahling Road". B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a cleared flat site with street improvements in place.The property was cleared and graded with initial development of the PCD.Access to the lot is via Rahling Circle,off of Rahling Road.The 0-2 and PCD zoned properties immediately south and east of the site are undeveloped.Similar sized office building are located adjacent to the west of the proposed site.The larger buildings of the multiuse PCD are located north of the site. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All owners within 200 feet of the site and residents within 300 feet,who could be identified,were notified of the Public Hearing.There is no City recognized neighborhood association within the vicinity of the site.As of this writing,staff has received one informational phone call concerning the development. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Public Works:No comment. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. ENTERGY:Approved as submitted. 2 December 19,zu02 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO.:Z-6232-E Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:No comment received. Central Arkansas Water:Approved as submitted. ~Pire De artment:Approved as submitted. ~fount Piannin:No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:This request is located in the Chenal Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Commercial for this property.The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development. Ci Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan:The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. ~hendeca e:Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. G,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(August 29,2002) Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application.Staff stated the revision to the PCD was a part of the overall development plan for the Villages at Rahling Road.Staff stated when the initial PCD was submitted the applicant indicated that as each lot developed the PCD would be required to be revised.Staff stated the current proposal was for a physical therapy office on an unrecorded lot in the subdivision, Staff stated the proposed site plan should indicate the dimension of all building setbacks from the property lines.Staff also stated the sign area was to be denoted on the site plan.Staff stated since the development was a planned development typical ordinance standards did not apply and there were no typical requirements with regard to signage.Staff also stated any additional site lighting must be low level and directional,directed away from residentially zoned property. 3 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:8 Cont.FILE NO '-6232-E Landscaping comments were briefly discussed.Staff stated the proposed areas set aside for landscaping appeared to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. After the discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. I L ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated there will be two (2)doctors serving the facility.Typically this would require 12 parking spaces and the applicant has indicated there will be 17 on-site parking spaces.In addition,there is a large parking area across the street should parking ever become an issue for the site.The revised site plan indicates a 7.5- foot landscaping strip along the eastern perimeter adjacent to the parking lot. The landscape islands have been increased to eight (8)feet as requested by Staff. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 3895 square foot office building and is proposing at some point in the future a 1242 square foot expansion area. The proposed expansion would not eliminate any of the proposed parking if developed. The applicant has indicated water will be extended to the site by the developer as required by Central Arkansas Water.The applicant has indicated the site will utilize city service for garbage collection and there will not be a dumpster located on the site. Staff is supportive of the request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow a physical therapy office to be located on proposed Lot 10B.The area is developing with non-residential neighborhood commercial and office type uses. The applicant has indicated signage will comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the Chenal Design criteria (not to exceed six (6)feet in height and 64 square feet in area).The applicant has indicated Lot 10B will be final platted prior to development.The hours of operation are proposed as 7:00 am to 9:00 pm six (6)days per week.The proposed use and hours of operation is consistent with the development pattern in the area and should have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. To Staffs knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed development.Staff recommends approval of the requested revision to the planned development subject to the conditions previously noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. 4 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 8 Cont FILE NO.:Z-6232-E I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed revision to the PCD to allow Lot 10B to develop with an office building subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D,E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application. There were no objectors present.Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the request to revise the previously approved PCD to allow the construction of an office use on unrecorded Lot 10B subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation"above. There was no further discussion.The application was placed on the consent agenda for approval.The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes,0 noes and 2 absent. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE 4k'.t~iso~ '..:..IIN.i......:.,;-'-''.,:.";":-"';.:,-:',g,;':.:,'.:-'':':..-":,".y..=@-, ALLEN,FRED,JR. FAUST,JUDITH FLOYD,NORM LANGLAIS,GARY LOWRY,BOB MEYER,JERRY MUSE,ROHN NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR. RAHMAN,MI ZAN RECTOR,BILL STEBBINS,ROBERT E&uc+~ ALLEN,FRED,JR.o e v'AUST,JUDITH -l T-(,Do o K v' FLOYD,NORM ~v e e v V v LANGLAIS,GARY o v v'y Y LOWRY,BOB e o e o v u. MEYER,JERRY ~e v v'USE,ROHN A 6- NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.Q5 v'' RAHMAN,MI ZAN A. RECTOR,BILL Qg .'50 e V v ™ STEBBINS,ROBERT '8 o o v u v I Meeting Adjourned i P.M.v AYE +NAYE ~ABSENT ~ABSTAIN ~RECUSE December 19,2002 December 19,2002 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. 2L,Q te ai man cret