pc_06 20 1996LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JUNE 20, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eight (8) in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The Commission approved the minutes of the May 9, 1996
Planning Commission meeting by a unanimous vote.
III. Members Present:
Members Absent:
Herb Hawn
Bill Putnam
Ron woods
Larry Lichty
Pam Adcock
Doyle Daniel
Suzanne McCarthy
Hugh Earnest
Ramsay Ball
Mizan Rahman
Sissi Brandon
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
REZONING AGENDA
JUNE 20, 1996
3:30 P.M.
I. DEFERRED ITEMS
A. Z-3369-C
B. S-1100
II. REZONING ITEMS
1. Z-4175-E
2. Z-5808-A
3. Z-6158
4. Z-6159
5. Z-6120-A
12501 Kanis Road C-3 to C-4
Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat
3000 Block of Aldersgate Rd. MF-12 to MF-18
SW corner of Asher Ave.
C-3
to
I-2
and Adams Street
13001 Kanis Road
R-2
to
C-3
14902 Alexander Road
R-2
to
0-1
Cooper Orbit Road, north
R-2
to
MF-12
of Spring Valley Manor
Q3kld
UJ co
1Y1V81H1
H31ZVH1
O
W
Joy
W�
�
w
2
0� �
NVWH30
F
x
o U
m'R
?O
O V
w
NIVH
AVMOVOH$ HOHV
H 1S3H0
o 83H380 o
ONIM 1W
Ed
o
F000ll a
�
Y
-
o MOHOOOM
_
3NId f3jb1S
NObY
3NId
Htl03O O NO111NVH 1100S
SS'Wb dS
MHVd HItl3
yLL
w U
CJ
AlIS83AIN0
A11S83AIN0
SONIHdS H3A3O
o d
C
vJ
53HOf1H
x
�u
IddSSIS IN
N �L�6 -
6
a3
w LOOHO
z
"%
,e
HIOAtl353H �
y
MOHtltlB NHOf
�, b
� 3)INI3H
�
_ r"1 Otl0331NOtlHS
OH d31 VH
oo $IOHtl$ y
< 3
Q NtlHHtld A3NOOH
9
- _
7W
NVWMOH
x
<
y
S11NIl AlIO
w w 3001tl ANIA
0�A
o
LO
2
U �
Pv
6
Z
NVAIl1nS
18VM31S
dyy
OS11NIl
AIIO
W
3
yy01n0 3lVUNH33
_' ' � June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3369-C
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Bob and Sherri Woodworth
Bob Woodworth/Cheryl Stanfield
12501 Kanis Road
Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Antique Automobile Sales
.93± acres
Vacant land
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Kanis Road and undeveloped, MF-18 zoned property
South - Single Family homes; zoned R-3
East - Single Family residence; zoned R-2
West - Little Rock Cleaning Systems Office; zoned 0-3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS
Dedicate Master Street plan right-of-way for Kanis Road, 45
feet from centerline.
With planned construction widen Kanis to 1/2 of a 60 foot
minor arterial with sidewalk. Due to less than 300 feet of
frontage an In -Lieu contribution is recommended for this
frontage prior to building permit. The In -Lieu amount shall
be submitted by a Registered Professional Engineer and
approved by Public Works.
Since lot is less than one acre stormwater detention is not
required. However, the effects of stormwater discharge onto
adjacent properties shall be addressed prior to construction
permit.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
adopted Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial.
The requested C-4 reclassification is in conflict with the
plan, and staff cannot support a plan change to accommodate
the proposed rezoning.
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3369-C (Cont.)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this vacant,
.93± acre tract from "C-3" General Commercial to 11C-411 Open
Display district. The applicant proposes to construct a
building on the property for the storage and sale of antique
automobiles. It is staffs understanding that the applicant
proposes to keep the vehicles inside the building and that
there may not be any outside display. However, automobile
sales is a use which is not permitted in the C-3 district
whether the vehicles are kept inside or outside of the
building. Thus the C-4 zoning request.
The abutting properties are zoned R-2, R-3 and 0-3. Uses on
these properties are single family homes and one office
building. The vacant property across Kanis Road is zoned
MF-18. Staff does not believe C-4 zoning is appropriate for
this site. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan
recommends Neighborhood Commercial for the property. The
requested C-4 reclassification is in conflict with the plan.
Perhaps a more appropriate approach would be to file a
Planned Development application which would allow C-3 uses
(as the property is currently zoned) and would also allow
the storage/sale of antique automobiles within the building
with no outside display.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 9, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had failed to mail the required notices and the item needed
to be deferred.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the June 20, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote
was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had requested that the item be withdrawn. The applicant
indicated that a Planned Development application would be
filed at a later date.
2
• June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: A Z-3369-C (Cont.)
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
withdrawal by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and
1 abstaining (Daniel).
3
Tune 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1100
NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning
approximately 0.9 mile south of the Kanis Rd. intersection,
extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0.5 mile
to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and
extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake.
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
William L. Dean
CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC.
600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite 111 15104 Cantrell Rd.
Maumelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212
868-7717
AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 318 FT. NEW STREET: 20,640
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi -
Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: Ellis Mountain (18)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
VARIANCES REQUESTED: See underscored material on following
pages.
STAFF UPDATE:
A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to
staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee meeting, making
the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting,
was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time
period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time
frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.)
There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the
revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and
still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the
agendas.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996)
Mr. Bill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined
the nature of the project and presented an overview of the
proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the
°Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting
,June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1100
that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning
staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the
discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to
meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public
Works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he
would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet
the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean
responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the
revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance
that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations,
the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996)
Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been
submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda
and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution
schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior
to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the
June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the
revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee
on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda
for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of
10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.
BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996)
Staff addressed the continuing change of the plat which is being
driven by the applicant trying to satisfy abutting owners. This
has caused staff of Public Works and Planning to defer commitment
on requirements that apply.
Mr. Hathaway offered his plat in the form that he hopes will
address the concerns of the "Oasis" Retreat Center. The Plan at
this time is to move the MF tract adjacent to the "Oasis", east
to the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and against the east
boundary of the plat. It appeared that Mr. Hathaway has taken
all necessary steps to deal with his neighbors but has not been
in a position to pursue rezoning, platting and the annexation at
the same time. Mr. Hathaway has pulled his rezoning from the
Board of Directors agenda and refiled the application to coincide
with the rehearing of the plat.
The Committee felt that, since the revised plat in the most
recent form has not been distributed for review and staff has not
completed comments, the plat should be held over until June 20th.
This will bring zoning and plat to the same agenda.
K,
Tune 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1100
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOLLOW-UP ON PLAT REVISIONS
The project engineer has submitted the following in response to
the last Public Works Review and Staff Comments.
Public Works/Developer Response
1. Clearing and Excavation Permit will be secured prior to
start of Phase I construction. A Notice of Intent filing
and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will also be
submitted to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology in accordance with NPDES requirements for
construction sites of more than five acres in size.
2. The principal Master Street Plan elements include minor
arterial extension from Cooper Orbit Road at the north
property boundary to the west subdivision boundary and
collector street extension of Cooper Orbit Road from the
minor arterial to the south subdivision boundary. The
Preliminary Plat shows proposed minimum ROW widths.
Variations from minimum widths shall be determined by the
street and drainage construction plans for each development
phase and incorporated on the Final Plats. Residential and
minor residential street grades will not exceed 17% and 18%,
respectively.
a) Minor Arterial - minimum proposed ROW width is 100,
with variations up to 120, in certain locations to
accommodate cuts or fills and an extra left turn lane
off of the minor arterial to southbound Cooper Orbit
Road. Street width is planned as 60, back -of -curb to
back -of -curb except for the section at the Cooper Orbit
intersection, which will be 72, back-to-back to provide
for the two left turn lanes onto the collector street.
b) Collector - minimum proposed ROW width is 90, through
Phase I and 100, minimum through Phase 3. Greater ROW
width in some locations is anticipated due to cut and
fill requirements. Normal street width is 36, back-to-
back except at the minor arterial intersection where
provisions will be made for left turn movements and a
right turn merge lane for eastbound traffic.
3. Stormwater detention requirements will be met through
construction of series ponds located in the areas indicated
on the Preliminary Plat. It is anticipated that all
differential runoff storage volumes required for the overall
project can be achieved with a pond system involving from
four to six ponds in series. Pond system design will
involve permanent pool depths and water supply from shallow
groundwater for water level maintenance. Runoff
hydrographs, stage -storage relationships, and pond routings
3
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
for peak discharge limits will be submitted along with
street and drainage plans for Phase 1 construction.
4. Variance requests relative to street and drainage
improvements include (a) maximum street grade of more than
14% for more than 200, interval along Cooper Orbit Road
through Phase 3; (b) sidewalks along Frankfort and Bangor
(cul-de-sac streets in Phase 2 that are slightly longer than
7501)• and (c) vehicle access for three single -fronted lots
along the southern end of Cooper Orbit as follows: Lot
Nos. 1, 34, and 35.
Sewer and Water Utilities
1. Development of Phases 1 and 2 will require interim sewage
pumping stations to serve until future extension of the 24"
diameter Brodie Creek interceptor sewer. Interim tie-in the
City system is proposed through connection to the 12"
diameter Payne Branch collector main currently serving only
Spring Valley Manor Subdivision (Sewer Improvement District
No. 239).
2. Relocation of the 12" water main along existing Cooper Orbit
Road will be completed according to the subdivision phasing.
Fire Department
1. Due to rezoning revision, the Columbia cul-de-sac has been
eliminated.
2. Fire hydrant spacing to
Layout will conform to
Municipal Water Works.
Planning
be utilized on the Water Facility
the requirements of the Little Rock
1. The Preliminary Plat has been revised to correctly show
front building setback lines. All easements shown are for
utility access except where marked as "sewer easement" or
"drainage easement", which are proposed as exclusive
easements, respectively. All utility access easements shown
on the Preliminary Plat that are not needed after completion
of all final underground utility layouts will be deleted on
the Final Plat(s).
2. Side lot line and rear lot line setbacks are not shown on
the Preliminary Plat but are governed by Section 4 of the
proposed Bill of Assurance. Any side lot line setback
variations related to utility of lots such as 82 and 96 will
be specifically noted in the Bill of Assurance for the
appropriate subdivision phase and will be noted on the Final
Plats for such phases.
4
'June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
3. Legend has been added.
4. Lot depth waiver as applicable is requested for Lots 122
through 128 and for Lots 139 through 142. Exception to
prohibition of pipestem lots is also requested for Lots 113
and 114,
5. The intersection offset at Cooper Orbit Road between Pierre
Drive and Rose Garden has been eliminated.
6. Street continuance signs will be placed per General Note No.
7.
7. Ownership of the property designated as "AP&L Easement"
rests with the developer. The AP&L easement south of St.
Paul Court is in use and is maintained by AP&L.
Accordingly, the abutting lots south of St. Paul respect the
AP&L easement. The existing AP&L easement north of St. Paul
is not currently used but is maintained by AP&L. The
developer is currently seeking abandonment of the unused
AP&L easement north of St. Paul. If abandoned, the AP&L
easement north of St. Paul will be deleted at the time of
final platting of the tier of lots along the west
subdivision boundary.
8. All out parcels, open spaces, and stormwater detention
facilities will be transferred to a property owner
association or other entity appropriate to operation and
maintenance of the respective areas and/or facilities.
9. Preliminary street grade estimates for principal streets
have been indicated on the Preliminary Plat.
10. Proposed grades on Lansing approaching the minor arterial
will not exceed maximum allowable grades, and approach
grades within 30, of the intersection will not exceed 5%.
11. Typical property line corner radii and curb line radii are
indicated in General Note No. 8 on the Preliminary Plat.
12. Sidewalk requirements are indicated by the Sidewalk Schedule
shown on the Preliminary Plat. Sidewalks and sidewalk
access ramps will be shown on the street and drainage
construction plans for each subdivision phase.
13. Refer to General Note 4 for list of double -fronted lots
along the arterial and collector for which ten foot "no
vehicle access" easements are proposed. Refer to General
Note 5 for list of lots with access limited to Cooper Orbit
Road.
5
'June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
14. Alignment of minor arterial at west property boundary has
been adjusted to provide for crossing of the property line
at a right angle.
STAFF REPORT ON REVISIONS
Planning Staff has reviewed the resubmitted plat and finds
nothing of consequence to comment on at this meeting. The
responses offered and waivers now stated satisfy all except:
linear feet of new street should be indicated; minimum lot size
as dictated by Hillside analysis in certain areas; city limits
and zoning; provide new updated notices; change Kanis Street
name.
PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE_ TO RESUBMITTED PLAT
A grading and NPDES permit will be required. Master Street plan
right-of-way and street improvements associated with Preliminary
Plat are required. Stormwater Detention analysis is required.
Stormwater above ground facilities are not shown on plat, and
when included need to be in a common tract with the association
responsible for maintained. Staff recommends a wet pond to add
to the beauty of this development. Underground facilities may be
located in easements.
The plans indicate plans for open ditches. The open ditches
should be discouraged and replaced with underground piping with
above ground swales and area inlets where required. Ditches are
a constant maintenance problem with access difficulties.
Residents fence the easements and fill ditches. Large open
drainageway pose a safety concern with neighborhood children.
Ditches that carry more than 10 cfs shall have a concrete invert.
All ditches that have velocities that exceed 6 fps will require
concrete lining. Staff is not prepared to approve the shown
locations at this time without further information. All ends of
pipes will be termined with Flared end sections and maximum
grades of 3:1 on slopes. All exposed earth within right-of-way
and easements will be sodded or seeded with mulch prior to final
platting lots. A system of above ground swales to handle the 100
year runoff will be required. These shall conform to City
Ordinance 31-176 and 29-127 with appropriate easements.
The City Ordinance allows street grades to vary from the Master
Street Plan by 2% as long as the average grade does not exceed
the Master Street Plan. The applicant proposes 17%, 18%, and 14%
grades for residential, minor residential, and Collector streets.
As long as they fall within Ordinance guidelines staff will
approve and a waiver is not required. The applicants proposal to
exceed the Master Street Plan allowables will be addressed at a
later date directly to the Board of Directors, unless a profile
of streets including intersections can be furnished. Staff will
6
?June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
send a recommendation based on construction plans at the time of
plan approval for that phase to the Board of Directors prior to
construction.
The Minor Arterial will need a right -turn lane at Cooper Orbit
for east bound traffic versus the plans for dual left turn lanes.
Frankfort does not appear to need a sidewalk waiver the dimension
scales from intersection to center of cul-de-sac appears to be
minor residential street. If the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors concur with the Bangor sidewalk waiver, Public
Works will not object. This street is less than 50 feet longer
than the allowable. Sight distances shall conform to residential
standards for Bangor. The applicant may wish to request a width
variance for Bangor, if the applicant plans to construct to minor
residential width of 24 feet versus residential width of 25 feet.
Add lots 138, 139, 183 and 224 of lots with no vehicle access
points to Arterial Street.
Add lot 36 to lots without vehicle access to Cooper Orbit. This
Primary Collector will need as few driveways as possible.
Driveway locations on the SF reserved and MF tracts shall conform
with ordinances and will be as approved with site plans prior to
construction.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (TUNE 20, 1996)
The Chairman instructed Staff to proceed with staff comment on
Item B. Richard Wood, of the Staff, opened his remarks by
stating that this plat matter is one of two items associated with
the Capitol Lakes project being a preliminary plat and a rezoning
action. The rezoning action to be dealt with later on this
agenda being Item No. 5. Wood pointed out that both Planning
Staff and Public Works Departments' comments had been generally
addressed and that the plat was in good shape at this point. Wood
pointed out that there are remaining several variances to be
dealt with; however, staff has worked with the Engineer toward
resolving most of the design issues.
It was pointed out that David Scherer, of Public Works, may have
some continuing comment on the variance relationship. Wood then
proceeded to read the several items that were included in
paragraph 5 of a letter. This letter was submitted to staff on
June 20, 1996 prior to the beginning of this meeting. The letter
containing a number of areas addressed by the engineer that
resolved design issues. Paragraph 5 was titled "Waivers" and the
several waiver or variance issues addressed are as follows:
7
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
Item A: A request for a waiver on maximum
allowable grade on collector streets to be
addressed at the time of final design.
Item B: This paragraph pointed out that at this
time no waiver is required or requested for
sidewalk on Frankfort Street in as much as a street
length has now been determined to be less than 750
feet. However, a waiver is requested for Bangor
Street in view of the fact that the length is
approximately 35 feet longer than specified by the
ordinance.
Item C: A vehicle access is required for Lots 1,
34, and 35 fronting on the south end of the
collector street.
Item D: A lot depth waiver is requested for Lots
122 through 128 and Lots 139 through 142. The last
waiver is a waiver of the pipe -stem lot requirement
on Lots 113 and 114.
With these items read, Wood instructed the Commission that unless
there is an offering from David Scherer, of Public Works, the
plat is appropriate for commission action. However, Wood pointed
out that the preliminary plat is still guided by the specific
determination on the rezoning which will be dealt with later in
this agenda. The zoning boundaries as finally approved may or
may not change the lot arrangement within the preliminary plat.
The Chairman then asked David Scherer if he had comments to add
to the Staff Recommendation at this point. David Scherer came to
the lectern. He stated that he had received a copy of the letter
provided by the engineer on the project prior to his meeting.
Scherer pointed out that there are some streets within this plat
which will require some waivers; however, Public Works is
requesting that they be set aside at this time and be dealt with
on the design for the final plat. At that time more detailed
information and engineering design will be available and such
waivers as may develop can then be forwarded to the City Board.
Mr. Scherer then discussed the street access to the large parcel
to the east, Lincoln Court by name. He indicated that the
engineer had noted that the street may be built to a collector
street at a later time in order to provide proper traffic access
to a significant potential development.
Commissioner Daniel questioned, when did Scherer receive this
letter. Scherer indicated that he had received it immediately
prior to the beginning of the meeting. He stated that all it did
was put in writing those understandings between the Staff and the
developer which was a follow-up to the Subdivision Committee
discussion.
8
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
Commissioner Daniel pointed out that he thought this was entirely
inappropriate to come in this late and in this fashion. David
Scherer stated that as far as he is concern they were simply
placing it in writing what had already been agreed upon. Scherer
also pointed out that everything that is in this late arriving
letter is also covered in the engineering write-up portion of the
agenda. This communication is simply in agreement to accomplish
those items that are noted.
A lengthy discussion then involved Commissioner Putnam and David
Scherer's response to a specific question about the Subdivision
Committee involvement. The discussion generally involved the
many issues associated with design of the plat, master street
plan, access to various lots and such.
A question by a commissioner then introduced a discussion on
Public Works' requirements for detention areas and open ditches.
David Scherer explained this at length. His response being that
Public Works was trying to discourage any open drainage ditches.
He also explained that the he did not have much experience with
this engineer in dealing with open ditches and detention. This is
a relationship that will have to develop and it will have to
properly instruct the engineer as to what Public Works' policy is
currently. He also pointed out that Public Works did not like to
have large wet storage ponds on individual lots which will
require individual property owners to maintain them. On some
occasions, property owners have filled in or damaged these kinds
of areas.
He stated that detention areas should be in a collective facility
assigned a tract outside private ownership on a permanent open
space.
Commissioner Adcock then posed a question. Her question has to
do with a list of lots that she read from David Scherer's
comments in the agenda. Her question had to do with access to
streets. She stated that she could not deal with this issue
because she did not know where these lots were located.
Mr. Scherer explained to Commissioner Adcock the ordinance
requirement dealing with double frontage lots versus single
frontage on collector and arterial streets the manner in which
they would be provided access and the manner in which they were
prohibited. He stated there were instances where there is a call
for an access prohibition easement that is on lots which are
double frontage and have principle access available on an
internal street on the frontage of the residence. He also
pointed out that in that list of lots which were numerated in the
write-up that there were some typographical errors on the plat
when they inserted the numbers involved in waivers. This has
been corrected. He further stated that the Subdivision Committee
9
June 20, 1996
TEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-11
had seen that plat and had reviewed these issues that are
outlined.
Mr. Scherer then displayed a copy of the plat and pointed out
some of the access concerns by pointing to some of the streets
and cul-de-sacs that were involved. Mr. Scherer concluded his
remarks. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was in
attendance. Mr. Bill Dean, the engineer for this development,
came forward and identified himself for the record.
Mr. Bill Dean stated that he had nothing further to add and he
felt that he had addressed all of the issues in the written
communication thats in the Commission's hands. Commissioner
Lichty pointed out that this communication was not in their hands
and according to Mr. Scherer there were still some unresolved
issues.
Mr. Dean pointed out that is not the case and he is in agreement
with the Public works on the approach to be taken to solve the
several design questions. For the record again, he stated that
what was placed in writing today and offered for the record was
simply confirmation of the understanding with the staff as
follow-up to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Mr. Dean then
briefly outlined his proposal for dealing with the storm water
detention. At the prompting of Commissioner Lichty, he pointed
out the treatment that was proposed for open ditches. He stated
that the open ditch sections would be treated as Public works'
requests, either in pipe sections or concrete ditches.
Commissioner Adcock asked if there were sidewalk waivers. Mr.
Dean pointed out that there was one and it is on a cul-de-sac
street. It is only 35 feet longer than ordinance maximum for
residential street. He stated that the variance of the sidewalk
would be attached to the street becoming a minor residential
street and does not require a sidewalk. There would not be
waivers for site distance and such because the standard street
requirements would still be maintained.
In a response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. Dean
stated that any of these issues required would be worked out with
the staff or in an appropriate fashion prior to the signing of
the final plat. Again Mr. Scherer went through his comments on
design specifics being required prior to knowing exactly what
kinds or locations of variances on the street design will require
Board of Directors attention as waivers. He stated that we
cannot possibly know this until specific design is submitted by
the engineer prior to the construction.
The Chairman then identified for the record that there were two
cards submitted from persons present wishing to speak, noting
opposition. Mr. Randy Sparks came forward and indicated that his
concerns were dealing with the rezoning of a portion of the
10
;June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: _B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100
property and not the preliminary plat; therefore, he would not be
offering comments at this time.
Chairman Woods then recognized Mr. McMinn, an attorney
representing property owners lying to the east boundary of the
subdivision at approximately the northeast corner of the plat.
Mr. McMinn stated that his clients owned approximately 80 acres
immediately east of this project. He stated that his clients had
no opposition to the specific preliminary plat or the zoning that
has been requested. He stated that with this proposal, his
clients would no longer have access to their property if Cooper
Orbit Road is closed.
Mr. McMinn stated that should this multifamily be successful at
this point no doubt his clients would probably seek such a zoning
at some point in the future. He stated his clients required
access at some point in a proper fashion or the retention of part
of Cooper Orbit Road to provide proper access. Mr. McMinn moved
his comments to water service to his clients' property. He
stated that they had participated in the cost of extending a 12
inch water main in this area and should the zoning and plat
proceed as proposed there was some potential for that line being
terminated and loss of water service to his clients. Mr. McMinn
stated that he had met with Mr. Hathaway recently and that they
had an understanding from Mr. Hathaway that he would work with
his clients to provide both access and maintain service
connection to the 12 inch water main.
Mr. McMinn pointed out that he was aware that the property
immediately south of his clients would be provided access over
the Lincoln Court street connection that was identified earlier
in the hearing.
Commissioner Lichty then asked Mr. McMinn if there was a way the
Commission could observe on a map or something the location of
this property relative to the proposal.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, produced a copy of the overall plat
and proceeded with instruction as to the relationship of the
boundaries of the separate properties. In a response to a
question from the Chairman, Richard Wood of Staff proceeded to
explain the issue of loss of access versus abandoned street
right-of-way for Cooper Orbit Road. Wood point out that the
street right-of-way is not abandoned by this plat or the zoning
action in as much as this is a public street. It would have to
be abandoned by specific ordinance of the City Board. Before
that could occur, the abutting property owners with access
interest would have to participate in that abandonment petition.
At that time it would be appropriate to determine exactly how the
access would be provided to Mr. McMinn's clients.
Mr. McMinn then offered concerns and some history of his
discussion with staff on this subject. His concern at this point
11
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-110
being that he be placed on record with his clients' concerns
about access and that they not be left out of the issue at some
future point and they be instructed that they should have
appeared at this meeting. He wants the record to show that
access will be an issue for his clients as portions of this road
are abandoned. Mr. McMinn stated that Mr. Jeff Hathaway
representing the application had indicated that a portion of the
road could and would be left open to resolve this issue.
McMinn pointed out that he understood staff to say that the road
had to be closed in its entirety in order to properly realign
master street plan.
Richard Wood, of the Staff, came forward to clarify this issue.
He stated that staff had not said that the road had to be closed.
He pointed out that the roadway in its current alignment is shown
traversing a tract of land proposed to be zoned multifamily. If
this does occur, then it seems reasonable that the road would be
abandoned. Staff would not prefer to see this street going
through the middle of such an apartment project.
Wood pointed out that although he would like to see the problem
eliminated, we understand the access issue to Mr. McMinn's
clients. We are forced to deal with the abandonment of current
right-of-way and where you move it to and when. However, he
pointed out that no application has been filed for abandonment of
the roadway at this time. Again, Wood restated the staff
understands it does not all have to be closed. A portion of it
could remain open to serve not only the extension of the water
main, but physical access to the development of Mr. McMinn's
clients' property.
Jim Lawson, of the Staff, then inserted for the record that
perhaps the minute record is the appropriate place to insert this
specific discussion so that there will be a record and when and
if the street right-of-way issue is presented these matters can
be dealt with. He stated that this being a preliminary plat it
may never be developed and may not produce a final product. He
also stated that he felt it was good and appropriate that Mr.
McMinn come forward and document the record with his clients'
concerns.
Commissioner Hawn then posed a question as to whether we are
realigning Cooper Orbit Road for the Master Street Plan
requirement. Richard Wood, of the Staff, responded by saying
that the plat has some bearing on where the new alignment would
be located. This is primarily because of the grades, the terrain
being very steep in this area and there are not that many choices
for collector and arterial streets given the kinds of design
criteria for those streets.
In a response to another question from Commissioner Hawn, Wood
pointed out that the Master Street Plan is not a fixed single
12
"June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-11
line alignment. It is typically sited in the specific final
location through development processes such as this one working
in concert with Public works Engineering Staff. This only
happens when a developer is ready to build something.
Commissioner Daniel then offered that he had a question for Mr.
Scherer. The question posed had to do with, since this plat did
not cover everything in the intervening area between here and
Kanis Road, what would be done with the streets intervening as
well as the streets running to the south through Spring valley
Manor. Mr. Scherer responded with a lengthy explanation of
Public works' policy and direction with regard to arterial and
collector streets in the urbanizing area. The basic thought of
Public works being that two lane roadway such as Cooper Orbit
Road entering this plat should not be immediately dumped into a
five lane arterial and then perhaps immediately dumped back into
a two lane street.
Public works' feeling is that a three lane facility initially
constructed will handle the traffic needs for a significant
period of time and at the same time the right-of-way would be
protected through dedication by the developers so that eventually
the roadway could be expanded to five lanes as traffic demands
required.
At the end of that discussion, the issue was then placed on the
floor by the Chairman for a motion. Commissioner Hawn offered a
motion as follows. His motion was that we accept the preliminary
plat of Capitol Lakes Estates as proposed and amended in the
letter received at this meeting and that the Commission recommend
that reasonable access to adjacent property be provided. The
motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes,
0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention.
13
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-4175-E
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
ERC Foundation, Inc.
James E. Hathaway, Jr.
3000 Block of Aldersgate Road
(south of Good Shepherd
Ecumenical Retirement Center)
Rezone from MF-12 to MF-18
Future development of a
nursing home
7.19± acres
Undeveloped, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Camp Aldersgate, zoned OS; vacant land, zoned
MF-12; Good Shepherd Retirement Center, zoned
MF-18 and R-6
South - Proposed Hospice Development; zoned POD
East - Vacant land, zoned MF-12 and OS
West - Vacant land, zoned MF-12
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Previous Planning Commission records will indicate the
requirements for this parcel. The right-of-way and the
construction of the collector with the appropriate 450 foot
radius and the location of this collector remain an issue
unresolved and are still not shown on plan according to the
Master Street Plan. With construction storm water detention
and other ordinance requirements will need to be addressed.
A grading permit is required prior to construction.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Plan
recommends Multifamily. There is no land use issue.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this
undeveloped 7.19± acre tract from "MF-121, Multifamily to
-MF-18- Multifamily. Once the property is rezoned, the
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 1 Z-4175-E (Cont.)
applicant proposes to file a conditional use permit to allow
for the development of a nursing home on the site. The
request is in conformance with the I-430 District Land Use
Plan which recommends Multifamily for the site.
In late 1995, the applicant filed an "0-3" General Office
request for 5± acres at this same location. The stated
purpose was to accommodate the future development of a
nursing home, which is a by -right use in the 0-3 district.
Staff did not support the 0-3 request as it was in conflict
with the Plan. Staff recommended that the applicant rezone
the property to MF-18, which allows nursing homes as a
conditional use. The item was deferred through several
Planning Commission meetings and was ultimately withdrawn by
the applicant on January 30, 1996. There were issues
related to the alignment of Aldersgate Road which the
applicant was unable to resolve at the time.
The site has no access to a public right-of-way. Access to
Aldersgate Road will be dealt with when a plat for this site
and the adjacent property is submitted and approved. A 30
foot wide strip of property which was granted for use as
right-of-way for Aldersgate Road cuts across the northwest
corner of this tract. The applicant will have to dedicate
Master Street Plan required right-of-way for Aldersgate,
which is a collector.
The requested MF-18 zoning conforms to the adopted plan and
is not out of character with the existing zoning and uses in
the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-18 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
Jeff Hathaway was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval. The Commission was
informed that there were unresolved issues related to the
existing alignment of Aldersgate Road which would be
resolved by the applicant and Public Works.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel).
2
11 June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5808-A
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Pat Watson
Maury Mitchell
SW corner of Asher Avenue and
Adams Street
Rezone from C-3 to I-2
Paint and body shop/
unspecified industrial use
1.7± acres
Vacant industrial building
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Variety of commercial uses
(primarily auto
related), zoned C-3
South
- Vacant, undeveloped; zoned
I-2
East
- Several vacant structures,
zoned I-2
West
- Variety of commercial uses
(primarily auto
related), zoned I-2
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Dedicate right-of-way for Asher 45 feet from centerline.
This Principal Arterial has a reduced right-of-way
requirement of 90 feet versus the normal 110 feet of right-
of-way for Principal Arterials. Dedicate a 20 radial area
at intersection. With construction widen Asher to 30 feet
from centerline and construct sidewalk with appropriate
ramps and relocate City owned utilities. Improve corner
turn radius to 31.5 feet. Driveways are limited to 100 feet
from intersection per City Ordinance. An SFHA Development
permit is required prior to any construction.
Driveways, drainage, on Asher will require City then AHTD
approval. Stormwater detention will need to be addressed at
construction. 1992 traffic count is 24,550.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the I-630 District. The adopted Plan
recommends Industrial. There is no land use issue.
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 2 Z-5808-A (Cont.)
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.7±
acre site from "C-3" General Commercial to "I-2" Light
Industrial. The property contains a vacant, 16,000 square
foot metal warehouse building. The remainder of the site is
paved. The applicant proposes to develop the property for
use by an auto paint and body shop and other unspecified
light industrial uses. The request conforms to the I-630
District Land Use Plan which recommends Industrial for the
site.
At one time, this site and the block across Adams Street to
the east were occupied by a lumber and building supplies
company. This site has been unoccupied since the lumber
company vacated the site several years ago. In early 1994,
this portion of the former lumber company property was
rezoned from I-2 to C-3 to allow for development of the site
for a private club. That venture never developed and the
site has continued to sit vacant.
The I-2 zoning request conforms to the adopted Plan and is
not out of character with other zoning and uses in the area.
On the south side of this portion of Asher Avenue, the
primary zoning is I-2 and I-3 with uses ranging from tire
and body shops to large warehousing facilities. The
properties on the north side of Asher Avenue are zoned C-3
and I-2 and contain a variety of uses, primarily auto
related.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested I-2 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
Maury Mitchell was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and a recommendation of approval.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a
vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel).
2
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6158
Owner: H & M Realty
Applicant: Pat McGetrick
Location: 13001 Kanis Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to C-3
Purpose: Unspecified future commercial
development
Size: 3.09± acres
Existing Use: Vacant land, nonconforming
businesses (towing service and
marble company) and one single
family residence
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Salvage yard, VFW Club and Single Family
residences, zoned R-2
South - Vacant land, zoned R-2
East - Single Family residences, zoned R-2 and 0-1
West - Single Family homes, zoned R-2
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Gamble Road is a collector that requires 60 feet of right-
of-way. Kanis Road is a minor arterial that requires 90
feet of right-of-way and a right -turn lane at Gamble Road
with the appropriate right-of-way. With construction widen
Kanis to 30 feet from centerline with a right -turn lane and
construct a sidewalk. The driveways shall be according to
ordinance and are restricted within 100 feet of
intersection.
Stormwater detention will be required. 1992 traffic count
is 6,280 east of Bowman and 2720 at Kanis just before Cooper
Orbit.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
adopted Plan recommends Transition Zone. There have not
been any changes to justify a plan amendment to Commercial.
Staff cannot at this time support a plan change.
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO • 3 Z-6158 (Cont.)
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 3.09±
acre tract from "R-2" Single Family residential to "C-3"
General Commercial. The site now contains two nonconforming
businesses (a towing service and a marble company) and a
single family residence. Gamble Road is proposed to extend
southward from Kanis Road, through this site, to access a
new single family residential subdivision developing to the
south. The applicant proposes to rezone the property on
either side of this new intersection to C-3. No specific
development is proposed at this time.
The request is in conflict with the Ellis Mountain District
Land Use Plan which recommends Transition Zone for
properties fronting on this portion of Kanis Road.
Multifamily and Office uses are more appropriate in the
Transition Zone.
Uses in the area are varied, ranging from Single Family
homes to a private club and a large salvage yard. R-2 is
the primary zoning in the area and many nonresidential uses,
including the aforementioned club and salvage yard, are
nonconforming. New single family homes are being developed
to the south. There is undeveloped C-3 zoned property
farther to the east, at the intersection of Kanis Road and
Point West.
Staff does not believe there is justification to amend the
Plan to Commercial and, as such, cannot support the
requested C-3 zoning. Staff has consistently voiced
concerns about stripping out Kanis Road with commercial
zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested C-3 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
Pat McGetrick was present representing the application.
There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item
and informed the Commission that the applicant desired to
amend the application to 0-3, with site plan review. In
response to the amendment offered by the applicant, staff
recommended approval.
Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission and confirmed that he
was amending the application to 0-3, with site plan review.
He briefly discussed the extension of Gamble Road which is
to bisect the property.
2
r June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 3 Z-6158 (Cont.)
Commissioner Adcock asked staff to explain the Transition
Zone designation on the Land Use Plan. Jim Lawson, Director
of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded.
He noted that this area along Kanis Road had developed with
a variety of uses. Mr. Lawson stated that staff saw the
area continuing to develop with a mixture of uses but was
opposed to strip commercial zoning. He noted that staff did
not see this area as a purely single family area.
The question had been called and a vote was taken on the
application, as amended. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and
3 absent.
3
r i f June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-6159
Owner: Earl and Barbara Brisendine
Applicant: Barbara Brisendine
Location: 14902 Alexander Road
Request: Rezone from R-2 to 0-1
Purpose: Use existing structure as
offices for food service
broker
Size: 2.0± acres
Existing Use: One story brick residential
structure which is occupied by
Brisco Food Service, Inc.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant
lot and
Single Family homes; zoned R-2
South
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
East
- Vacant,
wooded;
zoned R-2
West
- Vacant,
wooded
and Single Family homes; zoned
R-7A (also City
of Alexander)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Alexander Road is classified as a minor arterial, 90 feet of
right-of-way and 60 feet of pavement with sidewalk.
Dedicate right-of-way to bring property line to 45 feet from
centerline. Driveway must be improved for structure to be
used as office. Any planned construction will involve
widening of one-half the road to minor arterial standards
and the construction of a sidewalk. At the time of permit
other development related issues will be discussed. AHTD
approval will be required for construction within right-of-
way, after City approval. Current construction is a 22 foot
pavement with open ditches and no sidewalk. 1992 traffic
count for Alexander Road is 1560.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Otter Creek District. The
adopted Plan recommends Single Family. There have not been
any changes in the area to justify a plan amendment to
Office. Staff cannot support the introduction of
nonresidential use at this time.
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 4 Z-6159 (Cont.)
TAFF ANALYSI
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2± acre
tract from "R-2" Single Family to "O-1" Quiet Office. The
property contains a one-story, brick and frame residential
structure which has been converted into offices by Briscoe
Food Service, Inc. The applicant states she was not aware
that the property was in the City of Little Rock until a
representative of the City's Code Enforcement Staff issued
her a notice for violating the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is located at the extreme southwest corner of
the City, adjacent to the City of Alexander. The area is
rural in nature, comprised primarily of single family homes
on larger lots. Large areas are undeveloped and wooded. A
partially developed manufactured home subdivision is
adjacent to the west.
The primary zoning in the area is R-2, with the manufactured
home subdivision being zoned R-7A. Both of these
designations are single family residential. Within the city
limits, there is no nonresidential zoning within the
vicinity of this site.
The Otter Creek District Land Use Plan is reflective of the
existing zoning by indicating single family for this entire
area with the exception of the manufactured home subdivision
which is shown as MH on the Plan. The nearest
nonresidential on the Plan is well north of this site, at
I-30 and County Line Road.
The adopted Plan recommends Single Family for this site.
There are no other nonresidentially zoned properties within
the vicinity of this site. All surrounding uses are single
family. Staff cannot support the requested 0-1 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-1 zoning.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors
present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant
had submitted a letter on May 13, 1996 asking that the item
be deferred to the August 1, 1996 commission meeting.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for
deferral to the August 1, 1996 meeting by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 4 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniel).
2
r June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A
Owner: John L. Burnette, Trustee
Applicant: James E. Hathaway, Jr.
Location: Cooper Orbit Road, north of
Spring Valley Manor
Request: Rezone from R-2 to MF-12
Purpose: Future development of
apartment project
Size: 42.58± acres
Existing Use: Vacant, wooded
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North
- Vacant,
South
- Vacant,
East
- Vacant,
West
- Vacant,
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
wooded;
zoned
R-2
wooded;
zoned
R-2
wooded;
zoned
R-2
wooded;
zoned
R-2
See additional comments in File S-1100, Capitol Lakes
Estates preliminary plat. Dedicate right-of-way for Cooper
Orbit Road and unnamed minor arterial per Master Street
Plan.
LAND USE ELEMENT
The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The
adopted Plan recommends Single Family. Staff has agreed to
the addition of Low Density Multifamily in the area. This
is a reconfiguration and expansion of that use. Staff can
support moving the LMF from north to southeast of the
intersection, but cannot support expansion of the use area.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request before the Commission is to rezone this 42.58±
acre tract from "R-2- Single Family to "MF-12" Multifamily.
The rezoning request is associated with Capitol Lakes
Estates preliminary plat, a 190+ acre development of which
these 42.58± acres are a part (S-1100). The property is
currently vacant and heavily wooded. The proposed
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A (Cont.)
Multifamily property is in two tracts lying on either side
of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of a
proposed minor arterial street. This application is the
third version of proposed multifamily zoning associated with
Capitol Lakes Estates.
The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31± acres
at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat
from R-2 to MF-18. Staff was not supportive of the proposed
density and the application drew opposition from the
residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision which is
adjacent to the south. This application was later withdrawn
at the Planning Commission by the applicant.
The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8±
acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road
and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street from R-2 to MF-
12. The proposed multifamily property was in two tracts, a
27± acre tract lying south of the arterial street and a 7±
acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multifamily
property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor
Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported
this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of
the application. The density had been reduced from MF-18 to
MF-12. The proposed Multifamily property was basically
within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only
a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the
north. The property was located at the intersection of a
collector street and an arterial street. There was some
opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center.
The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on
April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with
persons at the Oasis Renewal Center who were concerned about
locating the 7+ acres of multifamily property adjacent to
their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis
people, the applicant withdrew this second application from
the Board of Directors' agenda and filed the current (third)
application.
This third version now consists of a proposal to zone 42.58±
acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper
Orbit Road from R-2 to MF-12. The proposed multifamily
property is in two tracts on either side of the new
alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new
arterial street. The 27± acre tract lying south of the
arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same
as in the second (approved) application. The 7± acres which
was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to
the Oasis property) has now been moved to a point south of
the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of
Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7±
acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the
Oasis property) will remain zoned R-2 and is shown as a
"reserved" tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary
plat.
Fa
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A (Cont.)
This third proposal is basically a reconfiguration of the
multifamily zoning approved through the second application
and, as such, staff is able to support the application but
for one issue. Through each application, the area proposed
for multifamily has steadily increased from 31± acres to
33.8± acres to the current 42.58± acres. Staff can support
moving the smaller tract of multifamily from north of the
proposed arterial street to southeast of the intersection of
the arterial and realigned Cooper Orbit Road; however we
cannot support increasing the area of this tract from 7±
acres to 14.81 acres as is proposed.
The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan currently
recommends Single Family for this site. Staff has agreed to
the addition of Low Density Multifamily in the area and the
Commission voted to amend the Plan based on the previous
application. If the applicant were to reduce the acreage of
multifamily to that previously approved, staff could support
an amendment in the Plan this time as well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the application, as filed. Staff
recommends that the 14.81 acres proposed for multifamily on the
east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road be
reduced to 7± acres, bring the total acreage proposed for
multifamily closer to the 34± acres as was previously approved
by the Commission on April 25, 1996. The applicant should also
amend the plat for Capitol Lakes Estates (S-1100) to reflect
single family development for the balance of the 14.81 acres.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 1996)
Jeff Hathaway and William Dean were present representing the
application. There were two objectors present. Staff
presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Staff
also gave a brief history of the three different multifamily
zoning proposals related to the Capitol Lakes Estates
Development.
Commissioner Lichty asked why staff was opposed to the
increase in acreage proposed for multifamily zoning. Dana
Carney, of the Planning Staff, and Jim Lawson, Director of
the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded.
They pointed out concerns about increased traffic,
inadequate streets accessing this area and the fact that
there was no specific development proposed which might
provide an opportunity to address questions about density.
Mr. Lawson also noted that the residents of Spring Valley
Manor had supported the previous application but were
3
June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A (Cont.)
concerned about this most recent proposal which moved the
proposed multifamily property closer to their neighborhood.
Jeff Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the
application. He presented a drawing and accompanying text
showing Capitol Lakes Estates and listing several reasons
for the Commission to approve the multifamily zoning. He
stated that this third proposal was an attempt to address
the concerns raised in the two previous applications by the
residents of Spring valley Manor and persons representing
the Oasis Renewal Center. Mr. Hathaway stated that the 13±
acres on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper
Orbit Road was dictated by such things as topography, right-
of-way and stormwater detention. He then discussed the 8
points in the written text which he had presented to the
Commission.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hathaway
noted that a portion of the eastern tract would be a lake,
reducing the buildable acreage available. Commissioner
Putnam asked how much net -usable acreage was available in
the eastern tract, taking into account the right-of-way and
lake feature. Mr. Dean responded that the net -usable
acreage was less than the multifamily acreage which was
previously approved on the north side of the proposed
arterial street. Mr. Lawson noted that the entire 14.81±
acres was proposed for multifamily and that figure would be
used in computing the density of apartments to be developed
on the site. Mr. Lawson stated that staff and the Spring
valley neighborhood were concerned about the number of units
to be developed on the site and what sort of traffic those
units would generate.
Commissioner Hawn asked why the plan had been changed from
that which had been previously approved by the Commission.
Mr. Hathaway responded that there was serious opposition
from the Oasis Renewal Center and the applicant chose to try
to accommodate them. Commissioner Hawn also noted that the
multifamily acreage had continued to grow.
Commissioner McCarthy complemented the applicant for working
with the Oasis Center and asked Mr. Hathaway to discuss the
proposed density of apartments on the site. Mr. Hathaway
responded that he could not provide numbers since the
project had not yet reached the design stage. Commissioner
McCarthy asked if it was the applicant's intention to use
the property to its maximum capability to provide for
development as apartments. Mr. Hathaway responded that the
physical limitations of the site would probably not allow
for development of the site at its full density.
Commissioner Putnam asked if the eastern site could be zoned
so as to have a density of 8 units per acre. Mr. Lawson
responded that it was up to the applicant to propose such a
condition.
4
• June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A (Cont.)
Commissioner Lichty asked if someone could provide a figure
of the amount of buildable/usable acreage available in the
eastern tract. Mr. Hathaway responded that the gross
acreage was 14.81± acres; deducting the right-of-way leaves
13.4± acres. Mr. Hathaway estimated the lake feature to be
approximately 3 acres; bringing the net -buildable acreage
down to 10.4± acres. Commissioner Lichty noted that the
difference between this proposal and the previously approved
rezoning was approximately 3 acres, or 36 units at 12 units
per acre. Commissioner Hawn noted that the 3 acres
represented by the lake feature would be zoned MF-12 which
would add to the density of apartments which could be
developed on the remaining property.
Commissioner Lichty asked if the lake was an essential
element for stormwater detention purposes. David Scherer,
of the Public Works Department, stated that there were
several ways to address stormwater detention. He noted that
the issue before the Commission was not a Planned
Development or site plan which could assure that the lake
would be developed as shown by the applicant. Mr. Scherer
stated that he could not require the construction of a 3
acre lake at the time of development unless the applicant
committed to that through the rezoning.
Mr. Hathaway stated that he was willing to amend the
application so as to limit the number of units which could
be constructed on the eastern tract.
O. C. Sparks, representing the Spring Valley Manor Property
Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He presented
a map showing the larger area around the property in
question. He discussed the Master Street Plan and the
impact of the proposed roads on the area. Mr. Sparks spoke
in opposition to the proposed multifamily zoning. He stated
that the neighborhood was opposed to moving the multifamily
zoning closer to the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision.
In response to a statement from Chairman Woods, Mr. Sparks
stated that the neighborhood had suggested that the density
be reduced on the eastern tract. Mr. Sparks stated that the
location was not as significant as the density.
Mr. Hathaway then stated that the applicant was willing to
amend the application to reduce the density of the
development that would occur on the eastern tract. He
stated that the density would be reduced by 36 units, the
estimated number of units corresponding to the 3 acre water
feature, and in conjunction with that, the applicant would
designate 3 acres from within that tract (most likely in the
location where the water feature is shown) to be reserved as
5
' ' *1 June 20, 1996
ITEM NO.: 5 Z-6120-A (Con
open space which would not be built upon. In addition,
Mr. Hathaway stated that the MF-12 calculation would be
based upon the acreage net of the right-of-way, 13.4± acres
instead of 14.81± acres. This would result, Mr. Hathaway
stated, in 52 units less than if the entire 14.81± acres
were developed at MF-12 density.
Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hathaway if he could restate the
amendment to state that within the rezoning request, an "X"
number of units was being requested. Mr. Hathaway stated
that 14.81± acres zoned MF-12 would result in 177 units and
he was proposing to reduce that by 52 units, leaving 125
units.
In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hathaway
stated that the amended application included leaving 3 acres
as open space.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to
include the conditions offered by the applicant that any
development on the eastern tract be limited to 125 units and
that 3 acres within the eastern tract be dedicated as open
space.
Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated that she was
uncomfortable with the amended application and suggested
that the item be deferred to allow the City Attorney's
Office an opportunity to review it. Mr. Lawson suggested
that the Commission vote on the item and that any questions
be resolved prior to the item being forwarded to the Board
of Directors.
In response to a question from Commissioner Daniel,
Mr. Sparks stated that the Spring valley Manor neighborhood
could live with the amended application.
A vote was taken on the amended application. The vote was
8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Lawson stated that staff would recommend approval of the
amended application to the Board of Directors.
6
a • *'
N
RE
v�e�o
MENNEN
z
H
H
o�
0
w
z
0
z
H
H
o�
0
w
z
0
V1
w�
4A
Fi
f » s
June 20, 1996
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
Date %,/c WS 1 l, / y 26