No preview available
 /
     
pc_07 12 2001sub/ LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMIGLRY AND MINUTE RECORD JULY 12,2001 4:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II.Approval of the Minutes of the May 31,2001 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members Present:Mizan Rahman Fred Allen,Jr. Pam Adcock Craig Berry Judith Faust Richard Downing Bob Lowry Norm Floyd Members Absent:Rohn MuseBillRector Obray Nunnley City Attorney:Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JULY 12,2001 I .DEFERRED ITEMS: A.Chenal Valley (Phases 28 and 29)—Preliminary Plat (S-867-KKKK) North end of La Marche Drive B.Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1096-D) 1012/1014 Autumn Road C.Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat (S-1240-C) Southwest corner of I-430 and Colonel Glenn Road D.Republic Industries —Revised PCD (Z-4484-B) 9812 I-30 E.Pinnacle Bank —Revised PD-0 (Z-5282-B) Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and North Rodney Parham Roads F.The Ranch (Lot B-5)—Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-7023) North side of Cantrell Road,approximately 600 feeteastofRanchBlvd. G.Chenal Valley (Tract 6A)—Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-7024) Northwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Valley Drive H.Fellowship Bible Church Parking Lot —Conditional Use Permit (Z-6149-C) 1701-1811 Napa Valley Dr. I.Fellowship Bible Church —Zoning Site Plan Review(Z-6149-D) East side of Napa Valley Dr.,approximately 600 feetsouthofHinsonRoad J.Limberg Duplex —Conditional Use Permit (Z-7041) 5307 Lee Avenue Agenda,Page Two II .PRELMINARY PLAT S: 1.The Woodlands —Preliminary Plat (S-1313) West of Bowman Road and the Brodie Creek Neighborhood 2.Watkins/National Park Additions —Replat (S-1316) 1410 East 28 Street III.PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS: 3.Jacobs —Revised PCD (Z-6698-A) 3800/3900 Blocks of John Barrow Road (west side) 4.Childers-Bennett —Revised PCD (Z-6932-A) 9802 Geyer Springs Road IV.SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 5.Staley —Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1314) East side of Fourche Road,approximately 200 feet north of J.E.Davis Drive 6.Lighthouse Center —Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1315) Northwest corner of East 16 and Commerce Streets V.OTHER MATTERS: 7.Gavin —Short-Form PCD —Revocation (Z-4776-A) 8424 Kanis Road H 10 F CO U N Pu b l i c He a r i n g It e m s 'H V Y S a J 5 EE Rl Vg I PR I D E VA L L E Y MA HA M z~ MA R K M V a 1- 6 3 O CI T Y UM I T S KA N I S 1- 6 3 0 K AM I S 12 T H I 2T H E. 6 T H W 8 WR I G H T 7 N 2 GI R T H 1 I- 4 3 0 RO O S E V E L T AM BT H RO O S E V E L T + hC LA WS O N 6 1- 4 4 0 + FR A E I E R PI K E LA R S O N 8 3 C ZE U B E R DA VI D 8 s O' D O D D 65 T H U~ BS T H RA I N E S + VA L L E Y D K IT Y LI M I T S CT 65 5 I6 7 IL DI X O N BA S E L I N E AS LN E oQ 5 4 DI X O N 36 5 HA R P E R OT T E R MA VA C TO F F CR E E K MA B E L V A L E BL I N K E R WE S T MN S O N Y DR E H E R AL E X A N D E R P R SP G S . C OF F CU T O F F CU T O F F EA QQ C CI T Y LI M I T S EL 65 36 5 AS H E R o PR A T T Su b d i v i s i o n Ag e n d a JL I I Y 12 , 20 0 1 July 12,2L ITEM NO.:A FILE NO.:S-867-KKKK NAME:Chenal Valley (Phases 28 and 29)—Preliminary Plat LOCATION:North end of LaMarche Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Deltic Timber Corporation White-Daters and Associates¹7 Chenal Club Circle 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223 AREA:136.81 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:205 FT.NEW STREET:15,600 linear feet ZONING:R-2/MF-6 PLANNING DISTRICT:19 CENSUS TRACT:42.06 STAFF NOTE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 17,2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the July 12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.Staff supports the deferralasrequested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay17,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheJuly12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. July 12,2E SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:A (Cont.)FILE NO.:S-867-KKKK The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 25,2001 requesting that the application be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune25,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheAugust23,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral asrequested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 23,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 July 12,2l ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D NAME:Autumn Subdivision (Lot 2)—Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:1012/1014 Autumn Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Central AR Land Development Co.Central Arkansas Engineering 1012 Autumn Road,Suite 1 1012 Autumn Road,Suite 2LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:2.18 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ALLOWED USES:General Office PROPOSED USE:General Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance for a reduced rear yard building setback BACKGROUND: On May 11,2000,the Planning Commission approved the AutumnSubdivision—Preliminary Plat.The subdivision included 6.43acresandthree(3)lots.On June 22,2000,the PlanningCommissionapprovedasiteplanforLot2,Autumn Subdivision.Lot 2 contains an existing 5,590 square foot (one-story)officebuildingand24parkingspaces.The multiple building site planapprovedforLot2wastotakeplaceinthefollowingphases: Phase 1 —A 7,014 square foot (single-story)officebuildingand58parkingspaces. Phase II —A 15,000 square foot (two-story)officebuildingand38parkingspaces. To date,none of the Autumn Subdivision has been finalplatted.The applicant notes that the various propertyownersareworkingtowardobtainingafinalplat,but it,isexpectedtotakeseveralmoremonths. July 12,2L. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approvedsiteplanforLot2,Autumn Subdivision.The only proposedchangeinthepreviouslyapprovedplaninvolvesmovingthe approved phase line.The owner of the east half of theproposedLot2isreadytoconstructthe7,014 square foot(one-story)office building as shown on the approved siteplan.Therefore,the owner proposes to move the phase linetoalignwiththecurrentownership(property)line.It istheowner's intent to purchase the remainder of Lot 2,final plat that lot within the next year,and continue withPhaseIIofthisdevelopment. Based on the fact that the applicant proposes to move thephaselinetoalignwiththecurrentpropertyline,a rearyardsetbackvarianceisrequired.The minimum requiredrearyardsetbackin0-3 zoning is 15 feet.The rear yardsetbackforthenewbuildinginPhaseIwouldbe5feet.The existing office building on the site maintains a rearsetbackof6.5 feet. Based on the fact that the preliminary plat will expire on May 11,2001 and the property transaction is expected totakeseveralmoremonths,the applicant is also requestingaone(1)year time extension for the previously approvedpreliminaryplat.This will allow the property owners timetoworkoutdetailsandfinalplattheproperty. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing office building on the proposed Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision.There is a mixture of office andcommercialusestothenorthalongChenalParkwayand totheeastacrossAutumnRoad.There is undeveloped propertyimmediatelysouthofthissite,with an office building andtwosinglefamilyresidencesfurthersouthalongthenorthsideofKanisRoad.There is a contractor'maintenanceyardtothewestanoffice/mini-warehouse development tothenorthwest. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Birchwood and John Barrow Neighborhood Associationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. 2 July 12,24=i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Same Comments as reviousl submitted on S-1096-C asfollows: 1.Autumn Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet fromcenterline. 2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements tothisstreetincluding5-foot sidewalk with planned development. 3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Autumn Road has a 1998 average daily traffic count of3,300. 5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. New Comment:1.Furnish sidewalk easement if right-of-way dedication isinsufficienttocontainsidewalk. With Buildin Permit: 2.Provide existing topographical information at maximum 5-foot contour interval and 100-year base flood elevation.3.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186 (e),will be required. 4.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)6 (d),will berequired. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. Entergy:No Comment received. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:Consider utility easement and conduit to supply service to rear building.Contact Southwestern Bellfordetails. 3 July 12,2b~t. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO ~:S-1096-D Water:On site fire protection will be required.Fire protection may be limited due to existing 6"water line. Hydraulic analysis will be performed as plans and requirements are provided to Water Works.Acreage fees of $150 per acre apply in addition to normal charges.Are Phase 1 and Phase 2 all one parcel? Fire Department:Private fire hydrant will be required. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:Project site is located near bus route ¹5,but 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:(MARCH 29,2001) The applicant was out of town and therefore not present.Staff explained the revised site plan to the Committee. There was very little discussion of the item,as there were no issues to be resolved.After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised site plan to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revise the previously approved site plan for Lot 2,Autumn Subdivision by moving the phase line to align with the current property line.This is to allow the new buildinginPhase1tobeconstructedbeforetheproperty transaction for the west one-half of Lot 2 and final platting of this lot. 4 July 12,2'. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D In conjunction with the adjustment in the phase line,the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback for the new building.The rear yard setbackforthenewbuildinginPhaseIwouldbe5feet.The ordinance requires a minimum setback of 15 feet.Staff supports the setback variance based on the fact that thevariancewillgoawaywhenLot2isfinalplattedasshown on the approved preliminary plat and the existing building on this property maintains a setback of less than 15 feet(6.5 feet). With the adjustment in the phase line,a total of 50 parking spaces will remain in Phase I.The ordinance requires a minimum of 31 parking spaces to serve the buildings within Phase I.Staff has no issues with the proposed phase line adjustment. Also noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a one (1)year time extension for the previously approved Autumn Subdivision —Preliminary Plat.This will allow thepropertyownersadditionalneededtimetoresolvedetails involving the property transaction and final platting.Staff supports the time extension as requested. Based on the fact that it is the applicant's intent tofollowthrough with the final platting of the subdivision and site plan for Lot 2 as previously approved by the Planning Commission,staff supports the revision of the phase line for the Lot 2 development.The revised site plan should have no adverse impact on the surrounding property. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the revised site plan forLot2,Autumn Subdivision subject to the followingconditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 2.Staff supports the variance for reduced rear yard setbackforthenewbuildinginPhaseI.3.Staff also recommends approval of a one (1)year timeextensionfortheAutumnSubdivision—Preliminary Plat.. 5 July 12,2l SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(APRIL 19,2001) Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on April 19,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the May 3,2001.With a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent,the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request as made by the applicant (less than five working dayspriortothepublichearing).Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 3,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 3,2001) Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 3,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the May 31,2001.With a vote of 10 ayes,0 nays and 1 absent,the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and accept the deferral request as made by the applicant (less than five working dayspriortothepublichearing).Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 31,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof10ayes,0 nays and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 31,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to July 12,2001.With a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 openposition,the Commission voted to waive their bylaws and acceptthedeferralrequestasmadebytheapplicant(less than five working days prior to the public hearing).Staff supported thedeferralrequest. 6 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:B FILE NO.:S-1096-D The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJuly6,2001 requesting that this item be withdrawn, without prejudice.Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforwithdrawal,without prejudice.Amotiontothateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 7 July 12,2t ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:S-1240-C NAME:Colonel Glenn Commercial Subdivision —Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION:Southwest corner of Interstate 430 and Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Vogel Enterprises Whi te-Dater s and Associates11219FinancialCentreParkway24RahlingCircleLittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72223 AREA:109.55 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:28 FT.NEW STREET:4,650 linear feet ZONING:0-2/0-3/C-3/C-4 PLANNING DISTRICT:12 CENSUS TRACT:24.05 STAFF NOTE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 16,2001requestingthatthisapplicationbedeferredtotheJuly12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.Staff supports the deferralasrecpxested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31 2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay16,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheJuly12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. July 12,2l SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:C FILE NO.:S-1240-C The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 25,2001 requesting that the application be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune25,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral as requested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 23,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 July 12,20 ITEM NO.:D FILE NO.:Z-4484-B NAME:Republic Industries —Revised PCD LOCATION:9812 Interstate 30 DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Republic Industries,Inc.None 9812 I-30 Little Rock,AR 72209 AREA:Approximately 0.75 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Office/Showroom with warehouse PROPOSED USE:Office/Showroom with warehouse VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: On October 1,1985 the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.14,960 rezoning the property at 9812 I-30 from R-2 to PCD forC-3 and I-2 permitted uses.The approved site plan included thebuildingasitcurrentlyexistsandapavedparkingareabetweenthebuildingandtheI-30 frontage road.Two (2)access pointswereapprovedfromthefrontageroad. To date,the paved parking area as shown on the approved siteplanhasnotbeenconstructedandthetwo(2)drives from thefrontageroadhavenotbeenestablished.Vehicles can currentlyaccessthesiteanywherealongtheexistinggravelvehicularusearea.The approved site plan also showed a small interiorlandscapeislandwithintheparkingarea. July 12,2(i. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4484-B A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests to revise the previously approved PCD site plan only with respect to the vehicular use areabetweentheexistingbuildingandtheI-30 frontage road.The applicant notes that it is their intention to pave thevehicularusearea.However,the applicant wishes not tostripetheparkingarea,install the small landscape islandorestablishinteriorcurbingwithinthevehicularusearea.The applicant notes that if interior landscaping andcurbingisconstructed,it will inhibit semi truck maneuvering within the site. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing commercial building on the property,with a gravel vehicular use area between the building andInterstate30.There is a mixture of commercial andindustrialusestotheeastandwestalongI-30 and to thesouthacrossI-30.There is a warehouse (Hank'Furniture) on the property immediately to the north,with R-2 zonedpropertyfurthernorth. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Town and Country and SWLR UPNeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthe publichearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.2.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilitiesarerequired.3.Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required.4.Driveway shall be one-way in and out only. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. Entergy:No Comment. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment. 2 July 12,24~1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4484-B Water:A development fee based on the size of connection will apply in addition to normal charges.On-site fire protection may be required. Fire Department:No Comment. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated busrouteandhasnoeffectonbusradius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs —West Planning District.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Commercial and Industrial for this property.The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Commercial Development for modification of the vehicular use area.A land use plan amendment is not required. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: A Neighborhood Action Plan is under development for thisarea.The Neighborhood Plan Steering Committee has beennotifiedofthisaction. Landsca e Issues: A small amount of landscaping is required.Landscapedareasmustbeprotectedfromvehiculartrafficwith curbing. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 10,2001) Jerry Larkowski and Jeff Butner were present,representingtheapplication.Staff briefly described the revised PCD.Staff noted that a full-size revised site plan needed to besubmittedshowingtheboundariesoftheproposedpaving. There was a brief discussion regarding the property and theexistingconditions.Staff noted that the applicant would need to obtain a franchise-type approval from the State,based on the fact that a portion of the vehicular use area 3 July 12,20vl SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4484-B is in the I-30 right-of-way.The Committee suggesteddeferringtheapplicationtoallowtheapplicanttime to meet with the State Highway Department and explore thefranchiseprocedure. Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that a small amountoflandscapingwouldberequired.Staff suggestedrelocatingthesmalllandscapeislandaswasshown on the previously approved site plan to another area of the site. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the issue tothefullCommissionforresolution. H .ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph G.,a portion of the vehicular useareabetweentheexistingbuildingandtheI-30 frontageroadislocatedintheI-30 right-of-way.The applicantsubmittedalettertostaffonMay16,2001 requesting thatthisapplicationbedeferredtotheJuly12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.This will allow the applicant time tomeetwiththeStateHighwayDepartmentanddiscussafranchise-type agreement for this vehicular use area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the application be deferred to theJuly12,2001 Planning Commission agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay16,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheJuly12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendafordeferraltotheJuly12,2001agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 21,2001requestingthatthisapplicationbedeferredtotheAugust 23, 4 July 12,24~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:D (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-4484-B 2001 agenda.The applicant is continuing to work out details with the State Highway Department.Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune21,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral as requested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the August 23,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 5 July 12,2G ITEM NO.:E FILE NO.:Z-5282-B NAME:Pinnacle Bank —Revised PD-0 LOCATION:Northeast corner of Rodney Parham and North Rodney Parham Roads DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Pinnacle Bank The Wilcox Group 2610 Cantrell Road 2222 Cottondale Lane,¹100LittleRock,AR 72202 Little Rock,AR 72202 AREA:0.88 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:PD-0 ALLOWED USES:Branch Bank PROPOSED USE:Branch Bank VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: On July 20,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,061 which rezoned this property from R-2 to PD-0 for thedevelopmentofabranchbank.The approved site plan included a3,580 square foot (two-story)bank building located within thesouthone-half of the property,with drive-thru teller lanes onthewestsideofthebuildingandanATMmachineonthenorthside.There is a parking area within the northern portion oftheproperty,with two (2)access points from North RodneyParhamRoad. The approved PD-0 development plan allowed for a ground-mountedsignwhichwastoconformtoCityOrdinanceasitrelatestoofficezonedproperty.The sign may have a maximum height ofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. July 12,2G SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-B A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PD-0 only with respect to the size of the ground-mounted sign near the southeast corner of the property.The applicant is proposing a pylon sign with a maximum heightof25feetandamaximumareaof94squarefeet. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Pinnacle Bank development is currently underconstruction. There is an office building and a commercial buildinglocatedadjacenttothispropertytotheeast,with single- family residences immediately north.A new office building (Cypress Plaza)is located across North Rodney Parham Roadtothewest,with a small commercial strip center to thesouthacrossRodneyParhamRoad. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call from a person expressing concern with the proposed signsize.The Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association wasnotifiedofthepublichearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No Comments. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: No Comments. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Rodney Parham PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Office for this property.The applicant has applied for a revision of anexistingPlannedDevelopment—Office for a different sign. A land use plan amendment is not required. 2 July 12,2G~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO ~:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-B Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan.The plan contained an Infrastructure Goal that called for the development of an adequate infrastructure network, including sidewalks,roadways,and drainage systems,within the neighborhood which is designed and works to produce asafeandattractiveneighborhoodenvironment. Landsca e Issues: No Comments. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 10,2001) Frank Withrow,Jr.was present,representing the application.Staff reviewed the previously approved and proposed sign sizes with the Committees. Mr.Withrow discussed with the Committee the need for thelargerground-mounted sign.It was noted that the largersizewasproposedforagreaterdegreeofvisibility.Staff noted that wall-mounted signage would also be allowed under the approved PD-0 Plan. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the revised PD-0 to the full Commission for resolution. H.ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revisethepreviouslyapprovedPD-0 site plan for this property only with respect to ground-mounted sign size.The maximum ground-mounted sign size allowed with the approved PD-0 includes a maximum height of six (6)feet and a maximumareaof64squarefeet.These are the maximum allowed dimensions for ground-mounted signage in office zones. The applicant proposes a ground-mounted pylon sign hear thesoutheastcornerofthepropertywithincreaseddimensionsasfollows: maximum height —25 feet maximum area —94 square 3 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:E (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-5282-B The applicant is requesting the larger sign for increasedvisibility,primarily from the east. Staff feels that given the small size of the proposed branch bank development (0.88 acre)with only 110+feet ofstreetfrontagealongRodneyParhamRoad,the amount of signage allowed with the approved PD-0 development plan should be sufficient to serve this property.This would include a ground-mounted sign with a maximum height of six (6)feet and maximum area of 64 square feet,as well as wall-mounted signage on the south and west building fronts up to 10 percent of the building faqade area.Therefore,staff cannot support the revised ground-mounted sign dimensions as proposed. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the revised PD-O. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay25,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheJuly12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendafordeferraltotheJuly12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJuly2,2001 requesting that this item be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforwithdrawal.A motion to thateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 4 July 12,2t ITEM NO.:F FILE NO.:Z-7023 NAME:The Ranch (Lot B-5)—Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION:North side of Cantrell Road,approximately 600 feeteastofRanchBoulevard DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Ranch Properties,Inc.White-Daters and Associates 900 S.Shackleford Rd.,24 Rahling Circle Suite 300 Little Rock,AR 72223LittleRock,AR 72211 AREA:9.51 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:C-2 ALLOWED USES:Commercial PROPOSED USE:Office STAFF NOTE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 16,2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the July 12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.Staff supports the deferral asrequested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay16,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheJuly12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendafordeferraltotheJuly12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. July 12,2G SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:F (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7023 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 25,2001 requesting that the application be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supports the deferral asrequested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune25,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheAugust23,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral asrequested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendafordeferraltotheAugust23,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 July 12,20 ITEM NO.:G FILE NO.:Z-7024 NAME:Chenal Valley (Tract 6A)—Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION:Northwest corner of Rahling Rod and Chenal Valley Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Deltic Timber Corporation.White-Daters and Associates 47 Chenal Club Circle 24 Rahling CircleLittleRock,AR 72223 Little Rock,AR 72223 AREA:9.82 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:0-2 ALLOWED USES:Office PROPOSED USE:Office STAFF NOTE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on May 16,2001 requesting that this application be deferred to the July 12, 2001 Planning Commission agenda.Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(MAY 31,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronMay16,2001 requesting that this item be deferred to the July 12,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the July 12,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof7ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. July 12,2(=~ SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:G (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-7024 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 25,2001 requesting that the application be deferred to the August 23,2001 agenda.Staff supports the deferral as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune25,2001 requesting that this item be deferred totheAugust23,2001 agenda.Staff supported the deferral asrequested. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendafordeferraltotheAugust23,2001 agenda.A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed byavoteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 July 12,24 -i ITEM NO.:H FILE NO.:Z-6149-C NAME:Fellowship Bible Church Parking Lot —Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:1701-1811 Napa Valley Drive DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Fellowship Bible Church Carter-Burgess 12601 Hinson Road 10809 Executive Center,Suite 204LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:4.38 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:5 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:R-2 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential PROPOSED USE:Parking lot for church VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: A variance to allow a 10 foot high privacy fence. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Fellowship Bible Church requests a conditional use permittoallowtheconstructionofaparkinglotonthefive(5)R-2 zoned lots along the east side of Napa Valley Drive,north of Rainwood Drive.The proposed parking lot willconsistof385parkingspaceswhichwillservethe Fellowship Bible Church campus to the northwest across NapaValleyDriveandtheproposedadministrativeofficebuildingtothenorth(Item 7.1.on this agenda).The sitewillhavetwo(2)access points from Napa Valley Drive,one(1)driveway near the center of the property and one (1)drive at the north property line between this property andtheproposedadministrativeofficebuildingproperty. The applicant is requesting one (1)variance with the proposed conditional use permit.The variance is to allowaprivacyfencealongtheeastpropertylinewhichisinexcessofthemaximumallowedheightofsix(6)feet.The July 12,24~& SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C proposed site plan shows a 10 foot privacy fence along this property line (two foot concrete block wall with an 8 foot wood privacy fence on top).The applicant has noted thatthe10footfenceheightwasattherequestoftheabuttingneighborstotheeast.The applicant also notes that the privacy fence will be finished on both sides. The applicant has noted that site lighting will be low-level (maximum 12 foot poles)and directed away fromadjacentproperty.The lighting will be phased for minimallightingduringnon-event periods. The applicant also notes that landscaping will meet andexceedtherequirementsoftheLittleRocklandscapeordinance.The applicant has designed the parking lot topreservemanyoftheexistingtreesonthesite.The proposed site plan shows the existing trees to remain. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area proposed for the parking lot currently containsfour(4)single family residences.There are single familyresidencestotheeastandsouthacrossRainwoodDrive.There is an existing Fellowship Bible Church parking areaonthe0-2 zoned lot immediately to the north.This 0-2 zoned property is proposed for an administrative officebuildingforthechurch(Item 7.1 on this agenda).TheTerryLibraryandaclinicarelocatedfurthernorth.TheFellowshipBibleChurchmaincampusandtheAsburyUnitedMethodistChurcharelocatedacrossNapaValleyDrivetothewest. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Rainwood Cove,Glen Eagles and Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no commentfromtheneighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Napa Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Planasaminorarterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.2.Rainwood Drive is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street.Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 3.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(Master 2 July 12,20~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development (or pay in-lieu of construction cost).4.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work.5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.6.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 7.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186(e),will be required. 8.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186 (c)(d),will be required. E.UTILITIES FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CATA: Wastewater:Sewer not required for parking lot.No comment. Entergy:No Comment. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment. Water:No Comment. Fire Department:No Comment. CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.Landsca e Issues: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Temporary fencing must be installed to protect the criticalrootzoneofthetreestobepreserved. The face side of the proposed screening fence must bedirectedoutward.It is recommended that slats be placed on both sides of the fence.Shrubs can help soften its impact.If brick or rock were to be used for screening, then vines could be used to soften the impact. 3 July 12,26 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6149-C Prior to obtaining a building permit,it will be necessary to provide landscape plans with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 24,2001) Mike Cruse and Randy Frazier were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed conditional use permit.Staff noted that the proposed privacy fence along the east property line needed to be finished on both sides.Mr.Cruse noted no issue with this recommendation.Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that the block base for the fence needed to have drains to allow water run-off from the east. The Public Works requirements were discussed.This discussion included the required street improvements along Napa Valley Drive. The landscape requirements were also discussion.Bob Brown,of the Planning Staff,noted that the street buffer along Rainwood Drive needed to be increased. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the conditional use permit to the full Commission for finalaction. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May 30,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffattheSubdivisionCommitteemeeting.Theapplicanthasnotedthatthe10footprivacyfencealongtheeastpropertylinewillbefinishedonbothsides.TherevisedplanalsoprovidestheincreasedstreetbufferalongRainwoodDrive. The revised site plan also shows a ground-mounted sign attheentrancedrivenearthecenteroftheproperty.Thesignwillhaveamaximumheightofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet.This is the typical ground-mounted sign size allowed for church developments. As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting avariancetoallowaprivacyfencealongtheeastpropertylineinexcessofthemaximumallowedheightofsix(6)feet.The proposed fence is 10 feet in height.Theapplicantnotesthatthe10footheightwasrequested by 4 July 12,24~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C the abutting neighbors to the east.Staff feels that theproposedfenceheightisreasonableandwillprovideadequatescreeningfortheresidencestotheeast. Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththisapplication.With thescreeningofthispropertyfromtheresidentstothe east,low-level/phased lighting and preservation of existingtrees,staff feels that the proposed parking area shouldhavenoadverseimpactonthegeneralarea. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitsubjecttothefollowingconditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and F of this report. 2 .Any site lighting must be low-level,directed away fromadjacentpropertyandphasedforminimallightingduringnon-event periods.3.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the10foothighprivacyfencealongtheeastpropertyline. 4.The 10 foot high privacy must be finished on both sidesandhavedrainstoallowwaterrun-off from the eastproperties.5.The ground-mounted sign is to have a maximum height ofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 14,2001) The applicant requested at the public hearing that theapplicationbedeferredtotheJuly12,2001 Planning Commissionagenda.This was due to the fact that only seven (7)planningcommissionerswerepresentatthepublichearing. There was a motion to defer the application to the July 12,2001agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Item H.Fellowship Bible Church parking lot —Conditional UsePermit(Z-6149-C)and Item I.Fellowship Bible Church -ZoningSitePlanReview(Z-6149-D)were discussed simultaneously atthispublichearing. 5 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6149-C Randy Frazier,Mike Cruse, Rick Sowell and Pat McGetrick were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed applications with recommendations of approval withconditions.There were several persons present with concerns. Randy Frazier addressed the Commission in support of the application.Mr.Frazier noted that the church had met with the neighborhood,individuals and neighborhood associations and that there was no organized opposition to the proposed applications. Mr.Frazier explained the current parking situation for the church and the need for additional parking.He noted that the church has 3 current needs. 1.Office space 2.Space for learning center with construction of a new office building3.Parking Mr.Frazier noted that the church currently has 1,174 parkingspacesandthat421ofthesespacesareleasedandnotowned bythechurch. Mr.Frazier explained the landscape plan for the proposed parking lot.He noted that 55 existing trees would be preserved on the site.He also noted that the landscaping for the parkinglotwouldexceedtheCityofLittleRockLandscapeOrdinance requirements.He noted a two-sided privacy fence would beconstructedalongtheeastpropertylineandthattherewould beaminimum25-foot buffer along this property line.Mr.Frazieralsodiscussedthelightingplanfortheproposedparkinglot, noting that the lighting would be phased and not on at latehours. Beverly Lindburg addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed applications.She explained the history of the past Fellowship Bible Church requests for parking and office building space on this property.Ms.Lindburg explained that members oftheneighborhoodhadfeltthreatenbythechurchinthepastand made allegations regarding how the church had previously dealt with the neighborhood representatives.She further explainedthatthehomesalongNapaValleyRoadwhichwouldberemoved with proposed parking lot were the only buffer that her neighborhood had.She stated that she had met with an appraiser and was told that development of a parking lot on this property 6 July 12,2b SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C would lower the property values for the homes in Rainwood Cove. She also discussed concerns relating to traffic,lighting, hours,and noise. Commissioner Lowery asked the church for assurance that they would not be back before the Commission in the future with further requests for this property.Mr.Frazier noted that theconstructionoftheproposedparkinglotwouldcapthechurch's plan at this location.Mr.Cruse noted that the church now hasamasterplan.He stated that the church would cap growth at7,500 members.He noted that the church would not move from itscurrentlocationbutwouldstartanotherchurchfurtherwest when the membership reaches the 7,500 member point. Commissioner Lowery asked a general question about the compatibility of a church development to a neighborhood,specifically about the church's proposed office building. Mr.Frazier responded that the City of Little Rock'Zoning Ordinance considered churches compatible with adjacent or nearbyresidentialneighborhoods.This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Adcock asked how long the church plans to be atthislocationandwhytherewasaneedforthelargeamount ofofficespace.Mr.Cruse responded that the church plans to stayatthislocationforeverandhadnoplanstomove.He explainedtheneedforofficespaceforthechurch. Commissioner Berry asked questions pertaining to the 0-2 zoningdistrictandofficeuses.He also asked about the previous Fellowship Bible Church request for parking and office space. Mr.Cruse addressed these questions and explained further. Commissioner Rahman asked about the height restrictions and 0-2 zoning.Staff briefly explained and outlined the specific height requirements for the 0-2 zoning district.Mr.Frazier noted that the office building was proposed on office zoned property and that the proposed office building was compatible with the existing zoning.Commissioner Rahman expressed concernabouttheproposedofficebuildingnotbeingcompatiblewiththeadjacentneighborhood.He made additional comments on thisissue. 7 July 12,20ui SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C Commissioner Floyd asked about the existing sanctuary seatingforthechurchandtheexistingchurchparking.Mr.Cruse responded that the existing sanctuary seating was 1,825 seats and that the church currently had 1,174 total parking spaces. Commissioner Floyd asked how the church would cap the membershipat7,500 members.Mr.Cruse explained that when there is a needforafourthchurchserviceatFellowship,the membership wouldsplitandanewchurchsitewillbeformedfurtherwest. Commissioner Adcock asked if an office building could be built on the 0-2 zoned property without the parking lot on the property to the south.Mr.Frazier explained that there is church-owned property to the east with parking,which couldservetheofficebuilding. Commissioner Faust noted that she had no problem with thevariancesfortheofficebuilding.She made comments about theconditionalusepermitandnotedthatthepropertywouldremain zoned R-2.She asked that if the church were allowed to developtheparkinglotontheR-2 zoned property what the probability would be that the property would ever revert back to singlefamilyresidential.Tony Bozynski,Assistant Director of Planning and Development,noted that if the property were developed as a parking lot it probably would never be revertedbacktosinglefamilyresidential.He explained that it would probably not be financially feasible for a developer to take thepropertyasaparkinglotandconvertitbacktoasinglefamilyuse.Commissioner Faust made additional comments on this issue. Mr.Frazier explained that the church would have no intent toeverleavethesiteafterdevelopedasaparkinglot.He notedthattherewerenoothersinglefamilyhomesalongNapaValley Road that faced the street.This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Rahman asked if the proposed parking lot would beneededwithoutconstructionoftheproposedofficebuilding. Mr.Frazier explained that additional parking is currently needed to serve the current church services. Chairman Downing asked the church representatives about Ms.Lindburg'allegations.Mr.Frazier noted that theallegationswereunsubstantiatedandnottrue,and he explainedthis.Mr.Cruse noted that the church had never called neighborhood representatives and requested meetings nor intimidated the neighbors in any way.This issue was briefly 8 July 12,20vl SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C discussed with additional comments by Commissioners Adcock and Lowery. Chairman Downing asked about security for the proposed parkinglot.Mr.Cruse noted that the parking lot would be gated at night from 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.He noted that the church had never received a complaint about activity on other church parking lots at night.Chairman Downing asked if the church would make the gated times a condition of their application. Mr.Cruse responded that they would.Chairman Downing asked if the church employed a security firm for their church property. Mr.Cruse responded that the church has never had a need to employ a security firm. Chairman Downing asked if there was a guarantee that the church would maintain the landscaping in and around the proposed parking area.Mr.Cruse responded that the landscaped areas would be maintained as per the City Landscape Ordinance maintenance provisions.Chairman Downing asked if this would be made a condition of the application.Mr.Cruse responded thatitwould.Mr.Frazier noted that the office part of the development would not be gated,only the parking areas. Commissioner Berry asked if any of the existing homes along NapaValleyproposedtoberemovedwiththeconstructionofthenew parking area were on septic systems.Mr.Cruse responded that the two of the homes were on septic systems.Commissioner Berrynotedthatsepticsystemsarenotecologicallyfriendly. Commissioner Allen asked if the proposed parking lot would berestrictedonlytoFellowshipBibleChurchuse.Mr.Cruse responded that the parking lot would be used specifically for Fellowship Bible Church functions,but also Pulaski Academy might park on the church lot. Commissioner Faust asked if other Rainwood Cove residents werepresentatthepublichearing.Ms.Lindburg noted that there were five persons present from the Rainwood Cove neighborhood. Mr.Cruse noted that the church had researched property values in the Rainwood Cove neighborhood and that they had increasedsincethechurchdevelopmenttothenorth. Commissioner Rahman asked why there were only five members of the Rainwood Cove neighborhood present at the public hearing. Ms.Lindburg explained that some of the residents were 9 July 12,2G~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:H (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-C intimidated by the church,and therefore did not want to attendthemeeting.She made additional comments in opposition to the proposed application for the parking lot. There was a motion to approve the conditional use permit,Item H(Z-6149-C),subject to the conditions as recommended by staff and the additional conditions placed on the application by theapplicantatthismeeting.The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes,4 nays and 3 absent.The a lication was denied. There was a second motion to approve the site plan review,Item I (Z-6149-D),as recommended by staff.Commissioner Adcock asked about the parking variance associated with the proposed office building.Staff explained that the off-site parking could be provided on the existing church property to theeast.This issue was briefly discussed.The Chairman calledforavoteonthesecondmotion.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,1 nay and 3 absent.The a lication was a roved. 10 July 12,2b ITEM NO.:I FILE NO.:Z-6149-D NAME:Fellowship Bible Church —Zoning Site Plan Review LOCATION:East side of Napa Valley Drive,approximately 600 feet south of Hinson Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Fellowship Bible Church Carter-Burgess 12601 Hinson Road 10809 Executive Center,Suite 204LittleRock,AR 72211 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:0.90 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:0-2 ALLOWED USES:Office PROPOSED USE:Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1.A variance to allow a reduced side yard setback (south side).2.A variance to allow off-site parking. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Fellowship Bible Church proposes a zoning site plan reviewtoallowfortheconstructionofanadministrativeofficebuildingonthe0-2 zoned property immediately south of theexistingTerryLibrary.The proposed office building will have an area of 36,000 square feet,with a maximum heightof45feet(3 stories). The applicant proposes a shared driveway between this 0-2 zoned property and the proposed parking lot (Item 7.onthisagenda)to serve the office building.There is a ground-mounted sign located along the north side of theaccessdrive.The sign will have a maximum height of six(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet.This is maximum allowed sign size for office zoned property(churches). July 12,20~& SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D The applicant is requesting two (2)variances as part oftheproposedsiteplanreview.The first is a variance toallowareducedsiteyardsetback(south side).The minimum required side yard setback in 0-2 zoning is 25feet.The proposed building (drive thru canopy)is approximately 12 feet from the south property line. The second variance is to allow 100 percent off-site parking for the proposed office building.The ordinanceallowsamaximumof25percentoftherequiredparkingspacesforadevelopmenttobelocatedoff-site.There are no parking spaces located on this 0-2 zoned lot.Withrespecttobothvariances,Fellowship Bible Church also owns the property to the south which is proposed for aparkinglot.Therefore,the conditional use permit for thesouthparkingareamustbeapprovedforthispropertytobeutilizedasparkingfortheofficebuilding.Otherwise,parking for the office building will need to be providedwithinotherFellowshipBibleChurchownedparkingareas. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The 0-2 zoned lot currently contains a parking lot whichservesFellowshipBibleChurch.The Terry Library islocatedimmediatelynorthofthissite,with a clinicfurthernorthatthesoutheastcornerofNapaValley DriveandHinsonRoad.There is an existing Fellowship BibleChurchparkinglot(which serves the youth building)immediately east,with single family residences to thesoutheast.The proposed Fellowship Bible Church parkinglot(currently single family residences)is located to thesouth.The Fellowship Bible Church main campus is locatedacrossNapaValleyDrivetothewest. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Rainwood Cove,Glen Eagles and Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.As of this writing,staff has received no commentfromtheneighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Napa Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.A dedication of right-of-way 45feetfromcenterlinewillberequired.2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 2 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6149-D 3.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.4.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 5.A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan,per Sec.29-186(e), will be required. 6.A Grading Permit,per Sec.29-186(c)(d),will be required. E.UTILITIES FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CATA: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to serve Administration Building. Entergy:No Comment. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment. Water:No Comment. Fire Department:No Comment. CATA:Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.Landsca e Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 24,2001) Mike Cruse and Randy Frazier were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the proposed site plan,noting that some additional information needed to be shown on the site plan. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Staff noted that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping met with ordinance requirements. After the brief discussion,the Committee forwarded thesiteplantothefullCommissionforfinalaction. 3 July 12,2b-i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May 30,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffattheSubdivisionCommitteemeeting.Therevisedsiteplannotesthebuildingheightandareaand ground-mounted signage information. As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting two (2)variances with the proposed site plan review.Thefirstisavariancetoallowareducedsideyardbuildingsetbackalongthebuilding's south side.The secondvarianceistoallow100percentoff-site parking for the proposed office building.The office building requires a minimum of 83 parking spaces.Staff feels that thevariancerequestsarereasonablebasedonthefact that Fellowship Bible Church also owns the property to the south,which is proposed to be a parking lot (Item 7.onthisagenda).The variance requests are required based onthefactthattheR-2/0-2 zoning line bisects the Fellowship Bible Church property ownership. Otherwise,to staff'knowledge there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththesiteplan.Staff feels that the proposed office building will have no adverse impact on thegeneralarea. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to thefollowingconditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report.2.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed awayfromadjacentproperty.3.The ground-mounted sign will have a maximum height ofsix(6)feet and a maximum area of 64 square feet.4.Staff supports the variance to allow reduced buildingsetbackalongthesouthpropertyline.5.Staff also supports the variance to allow 100 percentoff-site parking.Parking for the office building istobeprovidedonthepropertytothesouth,with the approval of the conditional use permit (Item 7.on this agenda),or within other Fellowship Bible Church owned parking areas. 4 July 12,20vi SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 14,2001) The applicant requested at the public hearing that the application be deferred to the July 12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.This was due to the fact that only seven (7)planning commissioners were present at the public hearing. There was a motion to defer the application to the July 12,2001 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Item H.Fellowship Bible Church parking lot —Conditional UsePermit(Z-6149-C)and Item I.Fellowship Bible Church —ZoningSitePlanReview(Z-6149-D)were discussed simultaneously atthispublichearing. Randy Frazier,Mike Cruse,Rick Sowell and Pat McGetrick werepresent,representing the application.Staff briefly describedtheproposedapplicationswithrecommendationsofapprovalwithconditions.There were several persons present with concerns. Randy Frazier addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.Mr.Frazier noted that the church had met with theneighborhood,individuals and neighborhood associations and thattherewasnoorganizedoppositiontotheproposedapplications. Mr.Frazier explained the current parking situation for thechurchandtheneedforadditionalparking.He noted that the church has 3 current needs. 1.Office space 2.Space for learning center with construction of a new office building3.Parking Mr.Frazier noted that the church currently has 1,174 parkingspacesandthat421ofthesespacesareleasedandnotowned bythechurch. Mr.Frazier explained the landscape plan for the proposed parking lot.He noted that 55 existing trees would be preserved on the site.He also noted that the landscaping for the parkinglotwouldexceedtheCityofLittleRockLandscapeOrdinance 5 July 12,20@i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D requirements.He noted a two-sided privacy fence would be constructed along the east property line and that there would be a minimum 25-foot buffer along this property line.Mr.Frazieralsodiscussedthelightingplanfortheproposedparkinglot, noting that the lighting would be phased and not on at late hours. Beverly Lindburg addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed applications.She explained the history of the past Fellowship Bible Church requests for parking and office building space on this property.Ms.Lindburg explained that members oftheneighborhoodhadfeltthreatenbythechurchinthepastand made allegations regarding how the church had previously dealt with the neighborhood representatives.She further explainedthatthehomesalongNapaValleyRoadwhichwouldberemoved with proposed parking lot were the only buffer that her neighborhood had.She stated that she had met with an appraiser and was told that development of a parking lot on this property would lower the property values for the homes in Rainwood Cove. She also discussed concerns relating to traffic,lighting, hours,and noise. Commissioner Lowery asked the church for assurance that they would not be back before the Commission in the future withfurtherrequestsforthisproperty.Mr.Frazier noted that theconstructionoftheproposedparkinglotwouldcapthechurch's plan at this location.Mr.Cruse noted that the church now has a master plan.He stated that the church would cap growth at7,500 members.He noted that the church would not move from itscurrentlocationbutwouldstartanotherchurchfurtherwest when the membership reaches the 7,500 member point. Commissioner Lowery asked a general question about the compatibility of a church development to a neighborhood,specifically about the church's proposed office building. Mr.Frazier responded that the City of Little Rock'Zoning Ordinance considered churches compatible with adjacent or nearbyresidentialneighborhoods.This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Adcock asked how long the church plans to be atthislocationandwhytherewasaneedforthelargeamount ofofficespace.Mr.Cruse responded that the church plans to stayatthislocationforeverandhadnoplanstomove.He explainedtheneedforofficespaceforthechurch. 6 July 12,20vi SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D Commissioner Berry asked questions pertaining to the 0-2 zoningdistrictandofficeuses.He also asked about the previous Fellowship Bible Church request for parking and office space. Mr.Cruse addressed these questions and explained further. Commissioner Rahman asked about the height restrictions and 0-2 zoning.Staff briefly explained and outlined the specificheightrequirementsforthe0-2 zoning district.Mr.Fraziernotedthattheofficebuildingwasproposedonofficezoned property and that the proposed office building was compatible with the existing zoning.Commissioner Rahman expressed concernabouttheproposedofficebuildingnotbeingcompatiblewiththeadjacentneighborhood.He made additional comments on thisissue. Commissioner Floyd asked about the existing sanctuary seatingforthechurchandtheexistingchurchparking.Mr.Cruse responded that the existing sanctuary seating was 1,825 seats and that the church currently had 1,174 total parking spaces. Commissioner Floyd asked how the church would cap the membershipat7,500 members.Mr.Cruse explained that when there is a needforafourthchurchserviceatFellowship,the membership wouldsplitandanewchurchsitewillbeformedfurtherwest. Commissioner Adcock asked if an office building could be built on the 0-2 zoned property without the parking lot on the property to the south.Mr.Frazier explained that there is church-owned property to the east with parking,which couldservetheofficebuilding. Commissioner Faust noted that she had no problem with thevariancesfortheofficebuilding.She made comments about theconditionalusepermitandnotedthatthepropertywouldremain zoned R-2.She asked that if the church were allowed to developtheparkinglotontheR-2 zoned property what the probability would be that the property would ever revert back to singlefamilyresidential.Tony Bozynski,Assistant Director of Planning and Development,noted that if the property were developed as a parking lot it probably would never be revertedbacktosinglefamilyresidential.He explained that it would probably not be financially feasible for a developer to take thepropertyasaparkinglotandconvertitbacktoasinglefamilyuse.Commissioner Faust made additional comments on this issue. Mr.Frazier explained that the church would have no intent to 7 July 12,20vi SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:2-6149-D ever leave the site after developed as a parking lot.He notedthattherewerenoothersinglefamilyhomesalongNapaValley Road that faced the street.This issue was briefly discussed. Commissioner Rahman asked if the proposed parking lot would be needed without construction of the proposed office building. Mr.Frazier explained that additional parking is currently needed to serve the current church services. Chairman Downing asked the church representatives about Ms.Lindburg's allegations.Mr.Frazier noted that the allegations were unsubstantiated and not true,and he explainedthis.Mr.Cruse noted that the church had never called neighborhood representatives and requested meetings nor intimidated the neighbors in any way.This issue was brieflydiscussedwithadditionalcommentsbyCommissionersAdcock and Lowery. Chairman Downing asked about security for the proposed parkinglot.Mr.Cruse noted that the parking lot would be gated at night from 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.He noted that the church had never received a complaint about activity on other church parking lots at night.Chairman Downing asked if the church would make the gated times a condition of their application. Mr.Cruse responded that they would.Chairman Downing asked ifthechurchemployedasecurityfirmfortheirchurchproperty. Mr.Cruse responded that the church has never had a need to employ a security firm. Chairman Downing asked if there was a guarantee that the church would maintain the landscaping in and around the proposed parking area.Mr.Cruse responded that the landscaped areas would be maintained as per the City Landscape Ordinance maintenance provisions.Chairman Downing asked if this would be made a condition of the application.Mr.Cruse responded thatitwould.Mr.Frazier noted that the office part of the development would not be gated,only the parking areas. Commissioner Berry asked if any of the existing homes along NapaValleyproposedtoberemovedwiththeconstructionofthenew parking area were on septic systems.Mr.Cruse responded thatthetwoofthehomeswereonsepticsystems.Commissioner Berrynotedthatsepticsystemsarenotecologicallyfriendly. Commissioner Allen asked if the proposed parking lot would berestrictedonlytoFellowshipBibleChurchuse.Mr.Cruse 8 July 12,20vi SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:I (Cont.)FILE NO.:Z-6149-D responded that the parking lot would be used specifically for Fellowship Bible Church functions,but also Pulaski Academy might park on the church lot. Commissioner Faust asked if other Rainwood Cove residents were present at the public hearing.Ms.Lindburg noted that there were five persons present from the Rainwood Cove neighborhood. Mr.Cruse noted that the church had researched property valuesintheRainwoodCoveneighborhoodandthattheyhadincreasedsincethechurchdevelopmenttothenorth. Commissioner Rahman asked why there were only five members of the Rainwood Cove neighborhood present at the public hearing. Ms.Lindburg explained that some of the residents were intimidated by the church,and therefore did not want to attendthemeeting.She made additional comments in opposition to the proposed application for the parking lot. There was a motion to approve the conditional use permit,Item H(Z-6149-C),subject to the conditions as recommended by staff and the additional conditions placed on the application by theapplicantatthismeeting.The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes,4 nays and 3 absent.The a lication was denied. There was a second motion to approve the site plan review,ItemI(Z-6149-D),as recommended by staff.Commissioner Adcock asked about the parking variance associated with the proposedofficebuilding.Staff explained that the off-site parkingcouldbeprovidedontheexistingchurchpropertytotheeast. This issue was briefly discussed.The Chairman called for avoteonthesecondmotion.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,1 nay and 3 absent.The a lication was a roved. 9 July 12 20vs ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:Z-7041 NAME:Limberg Duplex —Conditional Use Permit LOCATION:5307 Lee Avenue DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR: Itzberg,LLC Donald W.Brooks 101 E.Washington 20820 Arch Street Pike No.Little Rock,AR 72114 Hensley,AR 72065 AREA:0.137 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ALLOWED USES:Single Family Residential PROPOSED USE:Duplex VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allowfortheconstructionofaduplexonthevacantlotat5307LeeAvenue.The property is zoned R-3,Single FamilyResidential. The proposed duplex will have a total building area of2,900 square feet,with 1,474 square feet for the frontunitand1,426 square feet for the rear unit.The proposedduplexstructurewillhaveamaximumoverallheight(fromgroundleveltoroofpeak)of 32 feet (2 stories).Theapplicantnotesthattheproposedduplexstructurewill bedesignedtomatchthestyleofmanyotherresidentialstructuresintheHillcrestarea,and look like a singlefamilyresidencefromthefront.A preliminary front/sidebuildingelevationisattachedforPlanningCommissionreview. The applicant proposes to access the property by way of anexisting15footwidepavedalleyalongthesouthproperty July 12,2G -~ SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:Z-7041 line.Parking for five (5)vehicles is proposed off thealleywithintherearyard. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property at 5307 Lee Avenue is a vacant,undevelopedlot.There is a paved alley along the property's south boundary.There are single family residences to the east,west,south and across Lee Avenue to the north. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received several phone callsregardingthisitem,some expressing opposition.TheHillcrestNeighborhoodAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Petition Traffic Engineer to make alley one-way. E.UTILITIES FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CATA: Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. Entergy:No Comment. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment. Water:No Comment. Fire Department:No Comment. CATA:Project site is located on bus route 48 and has noeffectonbusradius,turnout and route. F.LANDSCAPE ISSUES: No Comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(MAY 24,2001) Jim Limberg was present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed conditional use 2 July 12,26 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:Z-7041 permit,noting that a few additional labels needed to be shown on the site plan. The original site plan submitted for this development showed two (2)driveways from Lee Avenue.Staff noted that these drives needed to be removed,with access to the property being from the existing paved alley. The Public Works Comment was briefly discussed.Tad Borkowski,of Public Works,noted that the alley along the south property line needed to be one-way.This is due tothefactthattheapplicantwillhaveaccess/parking fromthealley,and the existing alley width will not allow two- way traffic. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded theconditionalusepermittothefullCommissionfor finalaction. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on May 29,2001.The revised plan addresses the issues asraisedbystaffandtheSubdivisionCommittee.The two (2)driveways as originally shown on the proposed site plan have been removed,with access to the property being fromtheexistingalley.The proposed building height and area have also been shown on the site plan. The ordinance requires a minimum of three (3)parkingspacestoserveaduplex.The proposed site plan showsfive(5)spaces off the existing paved alley.Staff has no problem with the parking plan as proposed. Public Works has noted that the existing alley needs to be one-way,as the alley width will not handle two-waytraffic.The applicant has noted that he will meet withthetrafficengineeronthisissue. Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstandingissuesrelatedtotheconditionalusepermitapplication. The proposed duplex structure conforms to the buildingsetbackandheightrequirementsforR-3 zoning.Staff 3 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:J FILE NO.:Z-7041 feels that the proposed duplex structure represents a goodin-fill project that should have no adverse impact on the general area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitsubjecttocompliancewiththePublicWorksconditionas noted in paragraph D.of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JUNE 14,2001) The applicant recpxested at the public hearing that the application be deferred to the July 12,2001 Planning Commission agenda.This was due to the fact that only seven (7)planning commissioners were present at the public hearing. There was a motion to defer the application to the July 12,2001 agenda.The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,0 nays,3 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatterpresent.Staff noted that three (3)letters of opposition had been received on this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommendedbystaff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 4 July 12,20u1 ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 NAME:The Woodlands —Preliminary Plat LOCATION:West of Bowman Road and the Brodie Creek Neighborhood DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Ron Tyne and Associates Carter and Burgess,Inc. 8332 Windsor Valley Dr.10809 Executive Center Dr., N.Little Rock,AR 72116 Suite 204 Little Rock,AR 72211 AREA:214 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:466 FT.NEW STREET:29,500 linear feet ZONING:PRD (proposed R-2) PLANNING DISTRICT:18 CENSUS TRACT:42.07 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1.A variance to allow lots without public street frontage.2.A variance to allow two (2)pipestem lots with reduced standards. 3.A variance to allow reduction in design standards for WoodlandsTrail. 4.A waiver of additional right-of-way for Woodlands Trail.5.A variance to allow sidewalks to be constructed outside the right-of-way along Woodlands Trail. 6.A waiver of sidewalk construction along portions of Mossy Creek Drive and Foxfield Drive. A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 214 acresinto466singlefamilyresidentiallotswith29,500 linear July 12,2(rv1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 feet of new residential streets.The Planning CommissionrecentlyvotedtorevokethePRDzoningofthispropertyandreturnittoR-2 Single Family Residential.The PRDrevocationisscheduledtobeheardbytheBoardofDirectorsonJuly3,2001. The following are excerpts from the applicants'overletterwhichexplaincertaindesignaspectsofthe proposedpreliminaryplat: "This new neighborhood will preserve approximately 70 acres of greenbelts and openspacesandwillfeatureaneighborhoodparkwithconnectingtrails,sidewalks and footpaths.ThelandplanandsiteengineeringforTheWoodlandswillbedoneinsuchawayastoreducethe impact of development on the land.We are not only trying to preserve as many trees aspossibleinourdevelopment,but we are alsotryingtoreducetheamountofexcavationandfillrequiredtocreateroadwaysandbuildingsites.In addition,we are trying to minimizethedisruptionofthesite's hydrology byallowingthesurfacerunofftocontinueto flowinundisturbednaturalbasins." "The principal roadway through the property is shown on the city's Master Street Plan as acollectorstreet.We are proposing that no lotswillfrontthisroadwayexceptforthirteenlots on the eastern end,and we propose to buffer the roadway with wooded greenbelts ranging from 25'oover200'n width on each side.Inaddition,we will place three traffic-calmingcirclesapproximately1,200'o 1,300'part along this roadway.These circles,or roundabouts,are designed not only to slowtraffic,but also to discourage through traffic. We want to preserve more trees by allowing themtoremainclosetotheedgeoftheroadway.In some areas,this will require the use of steeperslopeswithrip-rap or vegetative cover in lieuof3:1 slopes.This roadway will be designed with no utilities except for electric service tostreetlights.Because of this and the desiredtraffic-calming effect,we are asking that this roadway be built as a 26'ollector with a 45'ight-of-way." "Along the collector street our sidewalks andtrailsareplannedtomeanderwithinthegreenbeltsandopenspaces.The property 2 July 12,2bv1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 owner's association will maintain these sidewalks and trails when located on commonly owned property." "Our desire is to create a neighborhood that looks and feels more like a wooded setting whereresidentscanmorefullyenjoythenaturalcharacteroftheland.By retaining more trees and minimizing the impact of development on the land,we are creating a higher quality neighborhood through environmentally responsible and sustainable site development techniques." The applicant is requesting several variances and waivers as part of the proposed preliminary plat,as listed on page1.of this report.The variances and waivers will be explained,with staff recommendations,in paragraph H. The applicant proposes to develop the single family residential subdivision in the following phases: Phase I consists of Lots 1-7 of Block 1,Lots 1-29 of Block 2,Lots 1-6 of Block 4,Lots 1-11 of Block 6,Lots 1-9 of Block 7,and Lots 1-3, 13-16 of Block 8; Phase II consists of Lots 30-52 of Block 2 and Lots 7-10 of Block 4; Phase III consists of Lots 12-18 of Block 6, Lots 10-16 of Block 7,and Lots 4-12 of Block 8; Phase IV consists of Lots 11-15 of Block 4 and Lots 53-88 of Block 2; Phase V consists of Lots 19-36 of Block 6,Lots 17-21 of Block 7,Lots 1-12,30-31 of Block 9 and Lots 1,25-26 of Block 11; Phase VI consists of Lots 16-21 of Block 4, Lots 89-94 of Block 2,Lots 1-6,16-23 of Block 3,and Lots 1-11 of Block 5; Phase VII consists of Lots 1-16 of Block 10, Lots 2-24 of Block 11,and Lots 1-19 of Block 12; 3 July 12,20vj. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 Phase VIII consists of Lots 13-31 of Block 9 and Lots 17-29 of Block 10; Phase IX consists of Lots 95-122 of Block 2, Lots 7-15 of Block 3 and Lots 12-25 of Block 5; Phase X consists of Lots 32,33 of Block 9, Lots 22-27 of Block 12,Lots 11-16 of Block 13, and Lots 1-17 of Block 14. Phase XI consists of Lots 1-17 of Block 16 andlots1-11 of Block 17. Phase XII consists of Lots 1-10 of Block 13,1-12 of Block 15 and Lots 18-23 of Block 14. The applicant is also including the following items as partofthepreliminaryplatproposal: 1.Turnarounds will be constructed at phase lines where through streets are severed.2.Floodway will be dedicated to the City.3.Design efforts for the three (3)roundabouts within Woodlands Trail will be coordinated with the City TrafficEngineer. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and mostly wooded,with varyingdegreesofslope.The area around this proposed plat is made up of single family residential uses and zoning.There are several single family residences on large acreagelotsinthegeneralarea.Phase I of the Brodie Creek PRDislocatedimmediatelytotheeast. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge,John Barrow, Sandpiper and Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received no comments from the neighborhood. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Dedicate floodway incorporated in plat boundaries to the City of Little Rock. 4 July 12,20vl SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 2.Woodlands Trail is a collector on the MSP.Dedicate 60'f ROW and construct minimum 31'f pavement. Incorporate MSP collector layout in preliminary plat.3.Re-design all roundabouts to meet Traffic Engineering requirements.Refer to Federal guidelines.4.Construct turn-around on all access easements serving more than one lot.(Eagle Nest)5.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work.6.Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlightsasrequiredbySection31-403 of the Little Rock Code.All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 8.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.9.Eagle Nest Cove needs new name.Contact David Hathcockfordetails. 10.Sweetfern Cove needs new name.Contact David Hathcockfordetails. 11.Mossy Creek Cove must connect with Mossy Creek Drive.12.Collector —Brodie Creek needs to continue with the same name. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. Entergy:No Comment received. AIBA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment received. Water:No Comment. Fire Department:Place fire hydrants per city code.Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:No Comments. 5 July 12,2tru1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: No Comment. Landsca e Issues: No Comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 21,2001) Ron Tyne and James Arbuckle were present,representing theapplication.Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat,noting several items which needed to be shown on the preliminary plat drawing.Staff noted that avarianceneededtoberequestedforseverallotswithout public street frontage. The Public Works requirements were discussed at length. Mr.Tyne noted that a variance would be requested to allow Woodlands Trail to be constructed at a reduced standard(less than collector standards).It was noted that the roundabouts along Woodlands Trail needed to be redesignedtomeetfederalguidelines.This issue was discussed at length.Public Works representatives noted that access needed to be provided to land-locked property to the north. Staff noted that the applicant needed to clarify the requested variances and submit a written phasing plan. After the discussion,the Commission forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat drawingtostaffonJune27,2001.The revised plat addresses manyoftheissuesasraisedbystaffattheSubdivision Committee meeting.The additional notations as required bystaffhavebeenshownontheplat. As noted previously,the applicant is requesting several variances and waivers as part of this preliminary platapplication.The first is a variance to allow Lots 61-66 6 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 and 107-109 of Block 2 without public street frontage. These lots are proposed to be served by 25 foot wide access easements and private drives.Staff has no problems withthisvarianceandhassupportedsimilarvariancesinother subdivisions in the past. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow two (2)pipe stem lots with reduced standards.These lots areLot24,Block 14 and Lot 11,Block 17.Pipestem lots aretypicallyprohibitedbyordinance,however,in subdivisions with areas which are difficult to develop,pipestem lots have been supported by staff and the Planning Commission inthepast. The ordinance requires that a pipestem lot have a minimum pipestem width of 30 feet and a maximum depth of 300 feet (including the stem).The pipestem width proposed for bothlotsis20feet.Lot 24,Block 14 has a depth of 313 feet. Given the fact that there is excessive slope in this areaofthesubdivisionandthattheapplicantisproposingtopreservealargeamountofopenspaceadjacenttothe pipestem lots (Tract Q),staff will support the variance toallowpipestemlotswithreducedstandards. The applicant is also requesting a waiver and two (2)variances associated with Woodlands Trail.The reasons forthesearenotedintheapplicant's statements in paragraphA.The first is a waiver of additional right-of-way dedication for the street.Woodlands Trail is a collectorstreetontheMasterStreetPlanandrequires60feetofright-of-way.The applicant is proposing 45 feet of right- of-way for the street.Public Works does not support thiswaiverandfeelsthattheentire60feetofright-of-way dedication is needed. The first of the two (2)variances for Woodlands Trail is avariancetoallowareductionindesignstandardsforthestreet.The ordinance requires a minimum of 31 feet of pavement for the street with a maximum 3:1 slope along thesidesofthestreet.The applicant is proposing 26 feet of pavement,with 1:1 slopes along the street sides.Public Works also does not support this variance and notes that two-way traffic on the street will be very difficult if avehicleisstalledandparkedonthesideofthestreet. 7 July 12,2(rut. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 The second variance associated with Woodlands Trail is toallowconstructionofasidewalkoutsidethestreet's right-of-way.The applicant is proposing a four (4)footasphaltsidewalkwhichwillmeanderwithinthegreenbelt along Woodlands Trail.Public Works supports this varianceasrequested.As noted in paragraph A.,the propertyowner's association for the subdivision will maintain the sidewalk. The final waiver/variance associated with this applicationisawaiverofsidewalkconstructionalongportionsof Mossy Creek Drive and Foxfield Drive.The sidewalk waiverisfortheportionofMossyCreekDrivebetweenthetwo(2)intersections with Meadowsedge Lane and the portion ofFoxfieldDrivebetweenWoodsgateDriveandHiddenPond Lane.The applicant feels that the sidewalks on the adjoining streets will provide adequate pedestriancirculationintheseareasofthesubdivision.Public Works does not support this waiver request. To staff's knowledge,the following Public Works issues are the only outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat: 1.Waiver of additional right-of-way for Woodlands Trail.2.Variance to allow reduced design standards for Woodlands Trail.3.Waiver of sidewalks for portions of Mossy Creek Drive and Foxfield Drive. Staff feels that the applicant has done an exceptional jobindesigningthissubdivision,using innovative design techniques to work with the natural characteristics of the land and reduce the impact of the development on the area. Although staff supports the application and appreciates what the applicant is trying to achieve with this plat,the unresolved Public Works issues as noted above will need to be discussed and resolved by the Commission. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subjecttothefollowingconditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 8 July 12,2G SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 2.Staff supports the variances to allow lots withoutstreetfrontageandtwo(2)pipestem lots with reducedstandards. 3.Staff also supports the variance to allow sidewalks tobeconstructedoutsidetheright-of-way along WoodlandsTrail. 4.Staff recommends denial of the waiver of additionalright-of-way for Woodlands Trail.5.Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow reduced design standards for Woodlands Trail.6.Staff recommends denial of the waiver of sidewalkconstructionalongaportionofMossyCreekDrive and aportionofFoxfieldDrive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Baker Kurrus,Ron Tyne and James Arbuckle were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed preliminary plat and the variances associated with theapplication.Staff recommended approval of the preliminary platandnotedthatallofthePublicWorksissuesinvolvedwiththeproposedplathadbeenresolved,and that Public Worksrepresentativeswouldaddresstheseissues. Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,explained the variancesassociatedwiththePublicWorksissuesanddescribedthedesignstandardsproposedforWoodland's Trail.He noted that Public Works supported a 28 foot street width for Woodland's Trail andthatthisstreetwidthwouldbesufficientfortwo-way trafficiftherewasastalledcaronthesideofthestreet.Mr. Turner also noted that Public Works supported the waiver toallow45feetofright-of-way for Woodland's Trail.He notedthatthiswouldbesufficientright-of-way to allow streetlightingtobeinstalled.Mr.Turner also noted that Public Works supported the variance to allow sidewalk constructionoutsideoftheright-of-way along Woodland's Trail.He notedthatthesidewalkalongthisstreetwouldbeplacedatan easement. Baker Kurrus addressed the Commission in support of theapplication.Mr.Kurrus briefly explained the proposed preliminary plat.He noted that this subdivision would notgeneratemuchtrafficandshouldhaveverylittleeffecton thegeneralarea. 9 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 Ron Tyne also addressed the Commission in support of the preliminary plat.He explained that the preliminary platsatisfiedfiveimportantdevelopmentcriteria. 1.Minimal impact of development on the land2.Preserve and conserve as much of the natural vegetation aspossible. 3.Reduce the amount of traffic and move it slowly through the area. 4.Provide strong pedestrian orientation.5.Establish multiple single family markets. Winton McInnis addressed the Commission with concerns.He notedthathedidnotquestiontheintegrityofthedevelopers,but had concerns with the proposed preliminary plat.Mr.McInnis explained that his concerns related to ingress and egress, signage,and traffic during development of this subdivision.He explained these concerns to the Commission. Vicki Bettis also addressed the Commission with concerns.Ms.Bettis noted that she lived in the Cherry Creek Subdivision to the north,and was concerned that the greenbelt behind her home be maintained. Beverly Hall also addressed the Commission with concerns.She noted that her main concern related to traffic and explained. Denise Cole also addressed the Commission with concerns relatingtotrafficandtheproposeddevelopmentofthesinglefamilysubdivision. Mark Miller also addressed the Commission with concerns.He explained that his concerns related to traffic and drainage. Chairman Downing asked for information regarding the MasterStreetPlanandhealsoaskedifthedeveloperhadmetwith the neighborhood concerning the proposed development.Mr.Kurrus noted that he had met with the neighborhood regarding the proposed plat and that the Master Street Plan called for a widerstreetthanwhatwasproposedWoodland's Trail.Bob Turner,Director of Public Works,explained that Brodie Creek Trail/Woodland'Trail was classified as a collector street ontheMasterStreetPlanandexplained.Commissioner Berry 10 July 12,20~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:1 FILE NO.:S-1313 commented that the reduced street design for Woodland'Trail and the other traffic calming devices would slow traffic alongthisstreet.This issue was discussed further. Mr.McInnis asked if Woodland's Trail would eventually extend to Kanis Road.Mr.Turner noted that it would as per the approved Master Street Plan and explained.This issue was brieflydiscussed. Chairman Downing called for a 10 minute recess.During the break the concerned parties met with Public Works representatives and the developers for discussion of the neighborhood concerns. Chairman Downing called the meeting back to order.He asked if any of the concerned parties had any further questions or comments relating to the proposed subdivision.There being noneamotionwasmadetoapprovethepreliminaryplatasrecommended by staff.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent.The preliminary plat application was approved. 11 July 12,2bvl ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1316 NAME:Watkins/National Park Additions —Replat LOCATION:1410 East 28 Street DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Old Dominion Box Co.,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick P.O.Box 680 319 E.Markham St.,Ste.202 Lynchburg,VA Little Rock,AR 72201 Don Frantz 1410 East 28 "Street Little Rock,AR 72206 AREA:8.53 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:I-2 PLANNING DISTRICT:7 CENSUS TRACT:5 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1.Waiver of street improvements to East 28 and East 30 Streets.2.A variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for two (2)existing buildings. A.PROPOSAL: The proposed replat involves part of Lot 1 and Lot 4,Block7,Watkins Addition,part of Lots 1-3,Block 8,Watkins Addition and part of Lots 11-20,Block 3,National ParkSubdivision.The applicant proposes to replat these lots and pieces of lots into two (2)lots.The resulting lots would be Lot 4R,Block 7 and Lot 2R,Block 8,Watkins Addition.There are two (2)existing industrial buildings July 12,2bvi SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1316 (and a small accessory building)on the site.The endresultofthereplatwouldbethateachindustrialbuildingwouldsitonaseparatelot. As part of the proposed replat,the applicant is requestingavarianceandawaiver.The variance is from the minimumrequiredsideyardsetbacksinI-2 zoning.The zoningrequiresaminimumsideyardsetbackof15feet.The newlotlinebetweenthetwo(2)existing buildings creates an11footsidesetbackforLot2R,Block 8 and a 13 foot sidesetbackforLot4R,Block 7.Currently,some of theexistingpropertylinesextendthroughthebuildings. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of half street improvements for very small areas of East 28 "Street andEast30Street.The two (2)proposed lots have a small amount of frontage on East 28 Street,with a portion ofLot4R,Block 7 having frontage on East 30 Street.Theapplicantisrequestingthewaiverbasedonthefactthattheimprovementswouldservenorealpurposeandbeofnobenefittothegeneralarea.The applicant is dedicating an easement (60 foot radius)at the end of East 28 Street,in case a turnaround at the end of this street is ever deemed necessary. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: There are two (2)existing office/warehouse structures onthesite,with areas of gravel and paved parking.ThereareindustrialusestothewestandtothenorthacrossEast28"Street.There is additional I-2 zoned property totheeastandsouth,with a railroad right-of-way alongtheseboundaries. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,staff has received no comment from theneighborhood.The Community Outreach NeighborhoodAssociationwasnotifiedofthepublichearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP"(MasterStreetPlan).Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. 2 July 12,24 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1316 2.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work.3.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance18,031.Show existing driveways. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Existing sewer mains located on site.Easementswillberequiredforallexistingsewermains.ContactLittleRockWastewaterUtilityfordetails. Entergy:No Comment received. ARKLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment received. Water:Service to Lot 4R from 28 Street will require city approval.Service to Lot 4R from 30 Street will require main installation.Service to Lot 4 will require maininstallation.Contact Julian Brown at 377-1226 fordetails. Fire Department:No Comment. Count Plannin :No Comment received. CATA:No Comments. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: No Comments. Landsca e Issues: No Comments. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 21,2001) Pat McGetrick and Rollin Caristianos were present, representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed replat.Mr.Caristianos stated that the property would be replatted into two (2)lots (with a building on 3 July 12,24v1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1316 each lot),and not four (4)lots as was originally thought. Staff noted that this would eliminate most.of the potential variances. The Public Works requirements were discussed.Public Works representatives noted that a waiver of street improvements for East 28 and East 30 Streets would be supported.This was based on the fact that these adjacent street rights-of- way would only serve this property.It was also noted that Public Works would need an easement for a turnaround at the end of East 28 Street.The applicant noted that an easement would be dedicated. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the replat to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised replat drawing to staff on June 27,2001.The revised plat addresses all of the issues raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee.The revised drawing shows two (2)resulting lots,not the four (4)lots that were originally planned by the applicant. This revision eliminates several variances. As part of the replat,the applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum side yard setback requirements for the two (2)existing buildings.The minimum side yard setback in I-2 zoning is 15 feet.The new lot line between the proposed lots is 11 feet from the building on Lot 2R, Block 8 and 13 feet from the building on Lot 4R,Block 7. Based on the fact that the two (2)existing buildings havelotlineswhichrunthroughthemandtheproposedreplat will eliminate that situation,staff supports the variance request.The buildings will have only a corner relationship with the new dividing lot line. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of half street improvements for East 28 and East 30 Streets.The two (2)proposed lots have a small amount of frontage on East 28 Street,with Lot 4R,Block 7 having frontage on East 30 Street.Public Works supports the waiver as requested, based on the fact that the improvements would be of no benefit to the general area and the likelihood of improvements being made to the remainder of these streets in the near future is slim. 4 July 12,2( SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:2 FILE NO.:S-1316 Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstandingissuesassociatedwiththeproposedreplat.Staff feelsthatthereplatisappropriate,as it takes two (2)existing industrial buildings which set on and over multiple lots and places them on individual lots for separate ownership.The proposed replat should have no adverse impact on the general area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the replat subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 2.Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow reduced side yard setbacks for the two (2)existingindustrialbuildings.3.Staff also recommends approval of the waiver of half-street improvements for abutting portions of East 28 andEast30Streets. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatterpresent.Staff added the followingconditiontotheotherconditionsofapprovalasnotedin paragraph I.of this report: The canopy (covering the sidewalk)which connects the two buildings and crosses the proposed lot line must be removed prior to the replat being signed bystaffandrecordedbythecounty. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 5 July 12,24~i ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6698-A NAME:Jacobs —Revised PCD LOCATION:3800/3900 Block of John Barrow Road (west side) DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT: Supplies Plus Co.,Inc.Matrix IV Architects Edward Jacobs 100 S.Main Street,Ste 418 3520 West 69 "St.,Ste.404 Little Rock,AR 72201LittleRock,AR 72209 AREA:Approximately 1.15 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Mixed Office/Commercial PROPOSED USE:Mixed Office/Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: On August 3,1999,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,078,rezoning this property from R-3 to PCD.The approved PCD allowed single building mixed office/commercial development. The approved site plan included a 10,000 square foot building(17 feet in height)located near the center of the site,with parking on the north,south and east sides. The following uses were approved for the building: 1.Supplies Plus Co.,Inc.(Office/showroom/warehouse)3,108 square feet (760 square feet of warehouse space)2.Two (2)beauty salons —1,936 square feet total3.General office uses —4,956 square feet July 12,24 J. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6698-A Alternate uses for the site are to be 0-3 permitted uses.Wall-mounted signage conforming to the ordinance standards forofficezoningwasalsoapprovedfortheproject.Approved hoursofoperationwillbefrom8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday throughSaturday. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD by adjusting the amount of building area,within the approved building,to be devoted to the approved uses.ThepropertyownerandownerofSuppliesPlusCo.,Inc.,EdwardJacobs,has determined that his office supply/officefurniturebusinesswillneedtoutilizemoreofthebuildingthatwaspreviouslythought.The following is the new proposed breakdown of use areas within the approvedbuilding: 1.Supplies Plus Co.,Inc.(Office/showroom/warehouse)6,000 square feet (3,600 square feet of warehouse/storagespace).2.Two (2)beauty salons —2,000 square feet3.General Office uses —2,000 square feet The adjustment in the amount of building area to be devotedtoeachoftheapprovedusesistheonlychangeproposedforthepreviouslyapprovedPCD.There are no changesproposedforthepreviouslyapprovedsiteplan. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: To date,some site work has taken place on the property,astheownerispreparingforconstructionofthebuilding'sfoundation.Single-family residences are located to thenorth,south and west,with a church located to thenorthwestalongLudwigStreet.Single-family residences,vacant R-3 zoned property and another church are locatedacrossBarrowRoadtotheeast. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The John Barrow,Campus Place and Westwood NeighborhoodAssociationshavebeennotifiedofthepublichearing.Asofthiswriting,staff has received one (1)phone call fromapersonrequestinginformationonthisapplication. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No Comment. 2 July 12,20v1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6698-A E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: No Comment. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Boyle Park PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office and Commercial for this property.The applicant has appliedforarevisionofanexistingPlannedCommercial Development to expand the office/warehouse within theexistingbuilding.A land use plan amendment is not requi red . Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan.The plan contains a goal of enhancing the climate directed towards encouraging new business and commercial establishments to locate in the area as well as retention of existing businesses.This plan does not list specific objectives or action statementsrelativetothisapplication. Landsca e Issues: No Comments. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 21,2001) Edward Jacobs was present,representi ng the application.Staff briefly described the revised PCD,noting that no changes were proposed to the previously approved site plan. The Committee briefly discussed the issue and forwarded the application to the full Commission for resolution. H .ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD by adjusting the amount of building area devoted to the approved uses.The net result would be that Supplies Plus Co.,Inc.(an office/supplies/ furniture business)would have additional overall building 3 July 12,24~& SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:3 FILE NO.:Z-6698-A area and approximately 2,840 additional square feet devoted to warehouse/storage space.The applicant notes that there will be no changes to the previously approved site plan. Staff feels that the proposed changes to the previously approved PCD are reasonable and will have no adverse impact on the general area.The proposed adjustment of building area devoted to the approved uses will cause no increase in minimum required parking. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatterpresent. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 4 July 12,24 ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6932-A NAME:Childers-Bennett —Revised PCD LOCATION:9802 Geyer Springs Road DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Randy and Brenda Childers None Bennie and Mary Bennett 8605 Olive Hill Dr. Mabelvale,AR 72103 AREA:0.43 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Commercial PROPOSED USE:Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: The property at 9802 Geyer Springs Road contains a 2,400+squarefootcommercialbuildingandpavedparkinglotthatwere constructed prior to this property being annexed into the Cityin1980.The structure was built as a convenience store with gas pumps in the 1970s.Subsequent to the convenience storeclosing,the building has housed a procession of commercial usesincludingarestaurant,a bar and,most recently,a pawn shop. When the property was annexed into the City,it was zoned R-2 and rendered nonconforming.The nonconforming C-3 status wasmaintainedbythecontinuousoccupancyofthesitebythe commercial uses.The most,recent commercial use,the pawn shop,closed over a year ago and the site had lost its nonconformingstatussincenocommercialuseoccupiedthebuildingsubsequenttothepawnshopclosing. July 12,2(r SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:2-6932-A On December 12,2000,the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No.18,394 rezoning this property from R-2 to PCD.The approved PCD utilized the existing as-built survey as the site plan and limited the use of the property to a specific list of uses proposed by the applicant.The approved PCD expressly prohibited any alcoholic beverage sales from the property.The following is the approved list of uses for the site: A.Antique Shop B.Applicance Repair C.Barber and Beauty Shop D.Cabinet and Woodwork Shop E.Clothing Store F.Day Nursery or Day Care Center G.Convenience Store with Gas Pumps H.Food StoreI.Hobby ShopJ.Key Shop K.Pawn Shop L.Photography Studio M.Secondhand Store N.Tool and Equipment Rental (inside display only) A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD by adding "eating place,inside"as a permitted use tothepreviouslyapproveduselist.There are no other changes proposed to the previously approved PCD. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located on the west side of Geyer Springs Road,several blocks south of Baseline Road.The immediateareaischaracterizedbyseveraltractsofundevelopedland and a developed residential neighborhood.The propertiesadjacenttothenorthandwestareundevelopedandzoned R- 2,Single Family.There is a church under construction tothesouth.An R-2 zoned Single Family residentialsubdivisionandR-5 zoned apartment buildings are locatedtotheeast,across Geyer Springs Road.Farther to thenorth,extending to Baseline Road,the properties contain avarietyofinstitutional,office and commercial uses. 2 July 12,2t SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:2-6932-A C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Allendale,O.U.R.,Santa Monica and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the publichearing.As of this writing,staff has received three (3)phone calls from persons requesting information on thisapplication. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No Comments. E .UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater Utility requires that a grease trap beinstalledforanyrestaurantuse. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: This request is located in the Geyer Springs West PlanningDistrict.The Land Use Plan shows Park/Open Space for this property.The applicant has applied for a revision of anexistingPlannedCommercialDevelopmenttoadd"eating place,inside"as a permitted use in an existing structure. This property was the subject of a Land Use Plan AmendmentthatwasdeniedbythePlanningCommissiononNovember9,2000.In response to concerns raised by staff and the neighborhood associations,the applicant submitted a letter on November 8,2000 asking that the application be amendedtoaPlannedCommercial'Development.At the same meeting, the Planning Commission approved the amended application, using the existing,as built survey as the site plan.TheexistingPlannedCommercialDevelopmentincludesonlythelistofusessubmitted(minus alcohol sales)in theapplicant's November 8,2000 letter.On December 12,2000theBoardofDirectorspassedOrdinance18,394 approvingthePlannedCommercialDevelopment. As stated previously,this revision would add "eating place,inside"as a permitted use in an existing structurethattheapplicantwishestoaddtotheexistingPlanned 3 July 12,2(r~x SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6932-A Commercial Development.A Land Use Plan amendment is not necessary since the Planning Commission reviewed the Future Land Use Plan late last year,no new structures are added, and the one added use is no more intrusive than those previously allowed. Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property is located in an area covered bytheCloverdale/Watson Schools Neighborhood Action Plan. The neighborhood action plan has an objective of reviewing neighborhood zoning and land use classifications for appropriateness.An action statement.supporting the goalofreviewingneighborhoodzoningandlanduseclassificationsencouragestheuseofPlannedZoningDistrictsforbusinessdevelopments. Landsca e Issues: No Comments. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 21,2001) Staff informed the Committee that the applicant was out of town and unable to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting.Staff briefly described the revised PCD.The proposed revised PCD was briefly discussed.The Committee then forwarded the application to the full Commission forresolution. H.ANALYSIS: As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant proposes to revisethepreviouslyapprovedPCDbyadding"eating place,inside"to the previously approved use list for the property.The applicant proposes no other changes to the approved PCD,and understands that the condition prohibiting alcoholic beverage sales from the site shall remain in full force. The typical minimum parking requirement for a restaurant is one (1)space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area.If the entire existing building were used as a restaurant,the typical minimum parking requirement would be 24 spaces. The applicant submitted a copy of the site plan to staff showing that the existing paved/concrete parking area will 4 July 12,26~& SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:4 FILE NO.:Z-6932-A accommodate 20 vehicles.Staff feels that the existing parking will be sufficient to serve a restaurant use on this site.Staff recommends that the existing parking area be striped so that it can be utilized effectively. Otherwise,to staff'knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with this application.Staff feels that a restaurant use for this property will be no more intense that the past use of the property nor the other uses on the approved use list,and should have no adverse impact on the general area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the revised PCD subject to the following conditions: 1."Eating place,inside"will be the only additional use added to the previously approved list of uses for the property. 2.The previously approved condition prohibiting alcoholic beverage sales from this property shall remain in fullforceandeffect. 3.The existing parking area must be striped.4.Little Rock Wastewater Utility recpxires that a grease trap be installed for any restaurant use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution.There were no objectors to this matter present. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 5 July 12,20v1 ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 NAME:Staley —Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:East side of Fourche Road,approximately 200 feet north of J.E.Davis Drive DEVELOPER:SURVEYOR: Staley,Inc.Edward Lofton 3400 J.E.Davis Dr.15415 OakcrestLittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72206 AREA:5.0275 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:I-2 ALLOWED USES:Industrial PROPOSED USE:Office/Warehouse VARIANCE S/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1.A variance to allow reduced driveway spacing.2.A deferral of street improvements for Fourche Road. BACKGROUND: The 5.0275 acre property located along the east side of Fourche Road,approximately 200 feet north of J.E.Davis is zoned I-2 Light Industrial.Based on the fact that the property owner is proposing a development which involves two (2)buildings,asubdivision(multiple building)site plan review is required bythePlanningCommission.The office/warehouse use as proposed by the applicant is a permitted use in the I-2 zoning district. A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct two (2)buildings onthesitetoserveasanoffice/warehouse for Staley,Inc. The project will be developed in three (3)phases.TheapplicantnotesthatthetreesintheareasofPhasesII and III will remain until construction of each phase. July 12,20v1 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 Phase I includes a 40 foot by 60 foot equipment storagebuildingtobelocatedneartheeastpropertyline.Initially,the access to this building will be from the south (J.E.Davis Dr.)through the existing Staley,Inc. development.There will be a future access point from thewest,when Phases II and III of this proposed developmentarecompleted. Phase II includes a 10,000 square foot office buildinglocatedwithinthewesternportionofthepropertyandaccessedfromFourcheRoad.A paved parking area for 61vehiclesisalsoproposedinPhaseII.The proposed site plan shows two (2)access drives from Fourche Road to servethedevelopment.The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum driveway spacing standards to allow the two (2)drives.The applicant notes that the two (2)drives are requested to allow safe and efficient semi truckaccesstotheproperty. The applicant is also requesting a deferral of the street improvements for Fourche Road for five (5)years or until development of Phase II,whichever occurs first.ThePublicWorksDepartmentindicatedsupportofthedriveway spacing variance and deferral of street improvements at theSubdivisionCommitteemeeting. Phase III of the proposed development includes constructionofa30,000 square foot warehouse addition along the eastsideoftheofficebuilding.The warehouse will havedrive-in doors on the north side and dock-high doors on the south side. The applicant notes that the proposed building constructionineachphasewillbepre-engineered metal buildings.ThebuildingsinPhasesIIandIIIwillhaveconcretetilt-up wall panels.The maximum overall building heights will be approximately 18 feet.The applicant notes that the PhaseIIbuildingwillbeconstructedtoaccommodateapossible second floor. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is undeveloped and mostly wooded.There isadditionalundeveloped(I-2 zoned)property to the north, with an industrial use further north.The City of Little Rock Public Works Operation facility is located immediatelyeastofthissite.There are office and office/warehouse uses immediately south,with an apartment complex further south across J.E.Davis Drive.The Metropolitan Career- Technical Center property is located across Fourche Road tothewest. 2 July 12,20m-j. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Upper Baseline and SWLR UP Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,staff has received one (1)phone call,which was from the Upper Baseline Neighborhood Association noting support of the application. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Fourche Road is classified as a commercial street. Dedication of ROW to 30 feet from centerline will be required. 2.Provide design of street conforming to "MSP"(Master Street Plan).Construct one-half street improvements to this street including 5-foot sidewalk with planned development. 3.Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4.Driveways shall conform to Sec.31-210 or Ordinance 18,031.Eliminate one driveway (36 foot maximum). 5.Grading permit will be required on this development. 6.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7.Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater:Sewer available,not adversely affected. Entergy:No Comment received. AEUCLA:No Comment received. Southwestern Bell:No Comment. Water:No objection.This appears to be one property. Multiple properties may require main installation. Multiple units on one property will require city approval of the meter request.Contact Julian Brown at 377-1226 for details. Fire Department:No Comment. Count Plannin :No Comment received. 3 July 12,20ut. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 CATA:No Comments. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division: No Comments. Landsca e Issues: The on-site street buffer along Fourche Road must average 40 feet in width.This measurement must be taken from the street right-of-way. The 9-foot wide landscape strips along the eastern and western site perimeters must continue southward at least 50 feet from the right-of-way of Fourche Road. Prior to a building permit being issues,it will be necessary to have landscape plans stamped with the seal of Registered Landscape Architect. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(JUNE 21,2001) Ed Staley and Stephanie Jensen were present,representing the application.Staff briefly described the proposed site plan. The Public Works requirements were discussed at length. Mr.Staley noted that he would request a deferral of street improvements to Fourche Road for five (5)years or until development of Phase II.Public Works representation indicated support of the deferral issue.Mr.Staley noted that the required right-of-way for Fourche Road would be dedicated. Mr.Staley also noted that he would request a variance to allow two (2)driveways to serve as access from Fourche Road.He explained that the two (2)drives were needed to allow safe and efficient semi truck access to the property. Public Works representatives also indicated support of this variance. 4 July 12,20~i SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 The landscape requirements were also discussed.Mr.Staley indicated that the site plan would be revised to comply with these issues. After the discussion,the Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on June 26,2001.The revised plan addresses all of the issues as raised by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting.The Planning Staff has reviewed the revised site plan and notes that the plan conforms to the Landscape and Buffer Ordinances.All of the proposed building setbacks and heights conform to the ordinance requirements for I-2 zoning. Public Works has also reviewed the revised plan and notes no outstanding issues.As noted in paragraph A.,the applicant is requesting a variance to allow reduced spacing for the two (2)proposed driveways from Fourche Road.The northern drive is located approximately 46 feet from the north property line,with the south drive being 75 feet from the south property line.The drives are separated by approximately 209 feet.The ordinance typically requires that drives be setback at least 125 from side property lines and separated by at least 250 feet.Public Works supports the variance request based on the fact that the site will be served by semi trucks and the two (2)drives are needed to assure safe truck access and circulation. The applicant is also requesting a deferral of street improvements to Fourche Road for five (5)years or until Phase II construction,whichever occurs first.Public Works notes that the deferral request is reasonable,and therefore supports the deferral as requested. The proposed development would require a minimum of 46 parking spaces.The proposed site plan provides parking for 61 passenger vehicles.Staff supports the parking plan as proposed. Otherwise,to staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with this application.The applicant has 5 July 12,2G SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:5 FILE NO.:S-1314 done an above average job in addressing the issues asraisedbystaffduringthereviewofthisapplication.Staff feels that the proposed site plan will have no adverse impact on the general area. I .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to thefollowingconditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D,E and F of this report.2.Any wall-mounted/canopy signage must conform to the ordinance standards for industrial zoning.3.The dumpster area must be screened on three (3)sides with an eight (8)foot high opaque fence or wall.4.Staff recommends approval of the variance from the minimum driveway spacing standards.5.Staff also recommends approval of the deferral of street improvements to Fourche Road for five (5)years or until development of Phase II,whichever occurs first. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application,as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatterpresent. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusionwithintheConsentAgendaforapprovalasrecommendedbystaff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 6 July 12,20~i ITEM NO.:6 FILE NO.:S-1315 NAME:Ligthouse Center —Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:Northwest corner of East 16 and Commerce Streets DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: The Lighthouse Center,Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick 6402 Butter Road 319 East Markham StreetLittleRock,AR 72209 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:0.344 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:2 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:R-5 ALLOWED USES:Multifamily residential ROPOSED USE:four (4)detached single family residences STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 18,2001requestingthatthisapplicationbewithdrawn.Staff determinedthatthisprojectwasrequiredbyordinancetobereviewedbytheBoardofAdjustment.The applicant has filed for Board of Adjustment review.Staff supports the withdrawal as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted aletteronJune18,2001 requesting that this item be withdrawn.Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal.A motion to thateffectwasmade.The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. July 12,20~~ ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4776-A NAME:Gavin —Short-Form PCD —Revocation LOCATION:8424 Kanis Road DEVELOPER: Gloria Gavin 516 Ridgeway Dr. Little Rock,AR 72205 AREA:0.3 acre NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 ZONING:PCD ALLOWED USES:Office/Mobile Phone Installation PROPOSED USE:Office A.BACKGROUND: On February 20,1990,the Board of Directors passedOrdinanceNo.15,819 rezoning the property at 8424 Kanis Road from 0-3 to PCD.The approved PCD allowed a mobile phone installation business in addition to the existingofficeusesonthesite.The approved site plan included a20-foot by 40 foot building addition for the mobile phoneinstallationbusinessaswellasnewareasofpavedparking.At the time of rezoning there were office useswithintheexistingbuildingwhichweretoremain. To this date,the building addition and new areas of pavedparkinghavenotbeenconstructed,and the mobile phoneinstallationbusinessisnotoperatingatthesite.Theexistingbuildingiscontinuingtobeusedasanoffice. B.PROPOSAL: The property owner,Gloria Gavin,submitted a letter tostaffonJune4,2001,recpxesting that the PCD zoning be July 12,20~~ SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:7 FILE NO.:Z-4776-A officially revoked and the property revert to its original0-3 zoning. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The John Barrow and Brownwood Terrace NeighborhoodAssociationswerenotifiedofthepublichearing.As ofthiswriting,staff has received no comments from theassociations. D .STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the PCD be revoked;that Ordinance No.15,819 be repealed and that the property be returned to0-3 General Office District as previously existed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JULY 12,2001) Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution.There were noobjectorstothismatterpresent. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made.The motion passed by a voteof8ayes,0 nays and 3 absent. 2 PL A N N I N G CO M M I S S I O N VO T E RE C O R D DA T E Tu MQ ( C oP J S Rh J l ME M B E R O' B ~& e F & ~a 3 s RE C T O R , BI L L DO W N I N G , RI C H A R D FL O Y D , NO R M NU N N L E Y , OB R A Y BE R R Y , CR A I G AD C O C K , PA M RA H M A N , MI Z A N LO W R Y , BO B AL L E N , FR E D , JR . FA U S T , JU D I T H MU S E , RO H N gC Uk h R , ME M B E R RE C T O R , BI L L A DO W N I N G , RI C H A R D V y' W FL O Y D , NO R M 0 NU N N L E Y , OB R A Y A. BE R R Y , CR A I G V Y v AD C O C K , PA M F RA H M A N , MI Z A N a LO W R Y , BO B ~ 'L L E N , FR E D , JR . FA U S T , JU D I T H MU S E , RO H N A Me e t i n g Ad j o u r n e d i 8 P. M . +A Y E NA Y E A AB S E N T l4 AB S T A I N ~R E C U S E May 31,206 July 12,2001 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 0 te Chairman ec et y /