Loading...
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