Loading...
pc_02 13 1996LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING MINUTE RECORD FEBRUARY 13, 1996 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Commission approved the minutes of the January 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting by a unanimous vote. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Herb Hawn Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Ron Woods Larry Lichty Sissi Brandon Pam Adcock Diane Chachere Ramsay Ball Doyle Daniel Suzanne McCarthy City Attorney: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING HEARING AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 1996 9:00 A.M. I. DEFERRED ITEM A. Z-3673-B 10100 Mabelvale Pike R-2 to C-4 B. Z-6070 3319 John Barrow Road R-3 to C-3 C. Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District D. Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic District E. Pinnacle Properties Conditional Use Permit (Z-5668-B) F. Winslow Court Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1088) II. REZONING ITEM 1. Z-4807-D III. OTHER MATTER 2. Z-6090 Outer Loop at Wellington R-2 and C-1 village Road to MF-18, 0-3 and C-3 Ferguson Conditional Use Permit 13 LITTLE ROCK Location Map REZONING HEARING 4A&- •♦ ARY 1 NORTH FEBR U 3,1996 u February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B Owner: Carmo, Inc. Applicant: Christopher McKinney Location: Request: 10100 Mabelvale Pike Rezone from R-2 to C-4 Purpose: To make the existing use conforming and allow the construction of mini -storage facility. Size: 1.98± acres Existing Use: The first 100± feet nearest Mabelvale Pike is occupied by a nonconforming auto paint and body shop. The remainder of the 700± foot deep tract is wooded and undeveloped. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 South - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 East - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 West - Single -Family residence; zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Mabelvale Pike is a minor arterial according to the Master Street Plan and the right-of-way required is 90 feet (45 feet from centerline). Dedicate an additional 15 feet of right-of-way. The present street width is 10.5 feet from centerline and there is open ditches without a sidewalk. With construction: Construct proper drive and parking. Contribute in -lieu contribution equal to 15% of the cost of improvements or the cost of widening the road to 30 feet from the centerline with sidewalk. A grading permit may be required with construction. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs West District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Cont.) is for Commercial. The majority of the area is Single Family and to change to Commercial in this location would lead to Strip Commercial along Mabelvale Pike. Staff cannot recommend changing the adopted Plan at this time. TAFF ANALYSI The request is to rezone this 1.98± acre tract from "R-2" Single Family residential to "C-4" Open Display Commercial. A nonconforming auto paint and body shop occupies the portion of the site adjacent to Mabelvale Pike. The remainder of the property is wooded and undeveloped. The applicant requests C-4 zoning to make the existing use conforming and to allow for the future construction of a mini -storage facility on the site. The property is located in an established residential neighborhood. All properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-2 and occupied by single family homes. Allowing the proposed C-4 zoning would have a detrimental effect on the adjacent residential properties. The Geyer Springs West District Land Use Plan recommends Single Family for this site. A small commercial node is recognized farther south of this property, at the intersection of Mabelvale Pike and Mabelvale Main. Allowing commercial at this site could potentially lead to stripping Mabelvale Pike with Commercial zoning. Staff cannot support changing the Plan to accommodate the proposed Commercial zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-4 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996) David Henry was present representing the applicant. There were numerous objectors present. Letters and a petition objecting to the rezoning had been presented to the Commission. Staff presented the item and recommended denial of the requested C-4 zoning. Mr. Henry addressed the Commission and asked that the item be deferred to allow for further review of the Land Use Plan. He stated that the applicant desired to rezone the property to accommodate the construction of a building to house a cabinet shop. Mr. Henry suggested that the application might be amended to provide an OS zoned buffer. 2 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Cont. Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Henry if the proposed use was not a mini -storage business. Mr. Henry responded that mini - storage was originally proposed but that the applicant now wanted to build a cabinet manufacturing business behind the existing body shop. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Henry stated that there had been nonconforming businesses in the building since the property's annexation into the City. Charlie Staggs, of 9990 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the C-4 zoning. He asked the Commission to keep the property zoned R-2. Acting Chairman Ball asked Mr. Staggs if there was room for discussion about alternative uses for the property. Mr. Staggs responded that he did not believe so. Commissioner McCarthy urged the neighbors to meet with the applicant. Elizabeth Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke at length in opposition to the C-4 zoning. She questioned why the applicant had changed the proposed use from mini -storage to a cabinet shop. Ms. Peel then stated that the applicant had parked vehicles in front of the rezoning sign to block persons from seeing it. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff, discussed the effect of nonconformity and its limits on the use of the site. David Henry again stated that the applicant desired a deferral to allow an opportunity to address some concerns which had been raised by the neighbors. George Niblock, of 9901 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the Commission in opposition to the C-4 zoning. In response to a statement by Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated that he wanted to get involved with his client and the neighborhood to see what could collectively be developed to improve the site. Commissioner Adcock then made a motion to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting with the understanding that the two parties meet to discuss the proposal. Mr. Henry asked about deferring the item for a longer time. Mr. Carney responded that there was a possibility of the Commission changing its meeting date and time. He stated that the item should be deferred no longer than the next scheduled rezoning hearing which was February 13, 1996. Mr. Henry stated that he intended to meet with the neighbors and hoped to have the issues resolved by February 13, 1996. If 3 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: A Z-3673-B (Con that is not possible, Mr. Henry stated that an additional deferral might be necessary. Commissioner Brandon stated that it was important that those persons present be made aware of any meeting. Commissioner Putnam briefly discussed the nonconforming status of the site. He stated that he agreed with the deferral but urged Mr. Henry to be prepared to discuss the nonconforming use of the site. A second was then made to the motion to defer the item. In response to a question from Mr. Niblock, Mr. Henry stated that he would set up a meeting. John Underhill, representing his parents who live across Mabelvale Pike from the site, addressed the Commission. Mr. Underhill stated that the operators of the body shop had expressed a desire to relocate. He reminded the Commission that the issue before them was a C-4 zoning request. Ms. Peel again addressed the Commission in opposition to the C-4 zoning. Commissioner Woods stated that the applicant would probably not get the C-4 zoning. He stated that the applicant wanted a deferral to meet with the neighbors and to perhaps amend the application. Louise Winkler, of 10113 Mabelvale Pike, addressed the Commission. She stated that the body shop was parking wrecked vehicles on the site. She asked the Commission to maintain the site's nonconformity. Jerry Peel, of 10010 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the C-4 zoning. He described problems that he had with the existing business on the site. (At this point, the Commission took a brief recess.) Theo Blacklock, of 10007 Mabelvale Pike, spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. She stated that the property had been an eyesore since the building was first constructed. Mrs. Blacklock urged the Commission to keep the property zoned R-2. Commissioner Lichty stated that he was opposed to the rezoning and to the idea of deferring the item. Commissioner McCarthy concurred. A vote was taken on the motion to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent. 4 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • A Z-3673-B (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter on February 5, 1996 requesting that the item be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. 5 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • B Z-6070 Owner: Guy and Beverly Wade Applicant: Guy and Beverly Wade Location: 3319 John Barrow Road Request: Rezone from R-3 to C-3 Purpose: Unspecified commercial development Size: .30± acres Existing Use: Single-family residence SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residence; zoned C-1 South - Beauty shop and vacant lots; zoned C-3 East - Vacant lot; zoned R-3 West - Single -Family residence; zoned R-3 ENGINEERING COMMENTS The current right-of-way line is 38.27 feet from the centerline of John Barrow, Master Street Plan Right -of -Way is 45 feet from centerline. Dedicate additional right-of- way or seek a waiver from the Board of Directors. West 34th Street right-of-way is currently 40 feet. Commercial streets require 60 feet, dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way. With Construction: Provide adequate off-street parking and drives per ordinances. This lot is too close to intersection to permit a drive location onto Barrow Road. The new driveby ordinance is to be 100 feet from Barrow Road. Construct sidewalk and ramps for 34th Street. Street improvements for 34th to commercial street standards will be required. Existing street is a 21 foot chipseal and should be 36 foot curb and gutter. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily. The request is for Commercial use. Staff agrees that the land use plan should be reviewed in this location. A February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: B Z-6070 (Cont.) neighborhood planning committee has been working to develop a policy plan for the area, and staff would like to work with this committee to determine how the plan should be amended. STAFF ANALYSIS The request is to rezone this property from "R-3" Single - Family residential to "C-3" General Commercial. The property consists of one single family residence occupying two lots. No specific use has been proposed by the applicant. The property is the only one on the east side of Barrow Road, between 32nd and 36th Streets, which is not zoned commercial. Adjacent property to the north is zoned C-1 and properties across 34th Street to the south are zoned C-3. It would appear that allowing some nonresidential use of the property would be reasonable. The Boyle Park District Land Use Plan currently recommends low density multifamily for the site. The Plan does not recognize much of the commercial zoning along Barrow Road, between 33rd and 36th Streets. Staff feels that the Plan should be reviewed in this area. A neighborhood planning committee has been working to develop a policy for the area. Staff would like to work with this committee to determine how the Plan should be amended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the February 13, 1995 Commission meeting to allow for further review of the Boyle Park District Land Use Plan in this area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended that the item be deferred to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting to allow for further review of the Boyle Park District Land Use Plan. It was noted that the applicant had agreed to the deferral. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE: The site is located in the Boyle Park District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily. The Fa February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • B Z-6070 (Cont.) request is for Commercial. Upon review of the Plan, staff determined the existing zoning pattern was ignored. In order to assure the meaningfulness of the Plan, Staff believes it is appropriate to amend the Plan. A review of existing zoning and land use lead Staff to the conclusion Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial are more appropriate classifications along John Barrow Road in the 36th Street area. Since a Planning Committee has been working in the area, Staff met with representatives of the Committee to discuss a Plan Amendment. Both Staff and the Neighborhood Planning Committee recommend the following changes: 1) At 36th Street and John Barrow Road the Mixed Use and Low Density Multifamily areas should be changed to Commercial. However no access to Ludwig or Longcoy should be allowed (open space strips); 2) From mid - block between 35th and 34th Streets along John Barrow north to 32nd Street, Mixed Office and Commercial would replace Commercial and Low Density Multifamily classified areas; 3) Either side of 37th Street along John Barrow the Mixed Use and Single Family area would change to Mixed Office Commercial. These changes recognize the existing commercial and office zoned tracts and also attempt to discourage any further commercial stripping along John Barrow. STAFF RECOMMENDATION UPDATE: The site in question is within the area proposed by the Land Use Plan Amendment to be Mixed Office and Commercial. Staff believes "C-111 Neighborhood Commercial would be more appropriate for the site than "C-3" General Commercial. "C-111 more closely meets that intent of the Mixed Office and Commercial designation and is designed to accommodate limited retail development within or adjacent to neighborhood areas. Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" rezoning request and recommends that the site be rezoned "C-1". PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) The applicant, Guy Wade, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented an update on the review of the existing zoning and land use in the area and recommended that the property be zoned C-1. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, noted that the proposed use was a "Hospitality House." The structure will be remodeled and made available for rent to accommodate special events such as birthday parties, meetings, showers, small dinner groups, 3 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: B_ _Z-6070 (Cont. receptions and small reunions. Mr. Carney noted that the proposed use was not permitted by right in the C-1 district and that a conditional use permit would be required. Mr. Carney stated that the applicant agreed to zoning the site C-1 and had submitted materials to request a conditional use permit. Mr. Carney made reference to the cover letter, house plan, facility use application and site plan which had been prepared by Mr. Wade and presented to the Commission. Mr. Carney stated that the site plan had been prepared with help from the City Engineer's and Planning Staffs and that issues such as landscaping, screening and parking lot design were addressed. It was also noted that Mr. Wade had agreed to limit signage to a single ground mounted sign 30 inches square in size. Mr. Carney noted the letter of support for the proposed use which had been sent by the John Barrow Neighborhood Association. He recommended approval of C-1 zoning and the conditional use permit for the hospitality house. In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Wade stated that there would be a staff attendant present at all times the facility is in use to monitor activity. George Brown, Vice President of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that Mr. Wade had met with the association and had addressed the group's three primary concerns; parking, safety and on -site monitoring and landscaping. Mr. Brown stated that the association voted 100% to support the application. He concluded by stating that the proposed C-1 zoning was compatible with the neighborhood plan and recommended approval of the application. A motion was made to approve the C-1 zoning as amended. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. A motion was made to approve a conditional use permit for the hospitality house as presented by Mr. Wade. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. 4 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: C NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District LOCATION: North of Rock Creek REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use Pattern SOURCE: Landowner STAFF REPORT: The City Planning Staff was asked to review the Land Use Plan in an area north and south of Chenal in the Kirk Road area. The property owner was asking for further intensification of land uses. South of Chenal to Mixed Office and Commercial (removal of last Multifamily) and Office to the north with Single Family changed to Multifamily at the West Loop. Staff agreed to look at the Plan and meet with representatives of the owner. Staff could not limit the review to one ownership and requested that representation of Chenal also meet with Staff to discuss possible land use plan changes. After review of the area and having met with the two major owners affected, Staff does believe some intensification is justified as well as some reconfiguration. There is basic agreement on a plan amendment, however, in order to get agreement on the overall package some additional time is needed. Staff will brief the Commission on most of the changes, but final action cannot occur until early 1996. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that the property owners and Staff were close to agreement but had not reached an accord yet. However, Staff still wanted to review the changings and the area under consideration. Mr. Malone reviewed the physical area where the amendments will be considered and generally what type of changes are being considered. By unanimous vote the item was deferred to January 16, 1996. February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) STAFF UPDATE: The owners still have not provided Staff their property. Therefore, Staff would 12 weeks giving the owners the right to necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 1995) with information on recommend a deferral for call the issue up soon if (JANUARY 16, 1996) Staff informed the Commission that a rezoning case had been filed for the February 13 hearing. Due to a lack of input by one property owner and the other's desire to proceed, Staff recommends deferral to the February 13 hearing so as not to adversely affect the property owner. By unanimous vote the item was deferred to February 13, 1996. STAFF UPDATE: (JANUARY 18, 1996) As stated previously, Staff began a review of the Kirk Road area at the request of a property owner to amend the adopted Plan. Several areas to the west and north were identified as locations needing a revision due to zoning and/or development activity. The adopted Plan calls for Neighborhood Commercial at the Kanis/Chenal Parkway intersection west of Kirk Road. However, the area zoned is larger than a typical "Neighborhood Commercial", zoned 11C-3" General Commercial and located at a major intersection. These factors make it unlikely that "neighborhood commercial" will develop here. A better classification would be Commercial. The northwest corner of Chenal Parkway with the proposed West Loop likewise is shown for Neighborhood Commercial. Again the area is too large; it is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and located at a major intersection. The actual development is more likely to be Commercial without a neighborhood origination. A Commercial classification more accurately reflects expected development. Along the east side of the proposed West Loop, between Chenal Parkway and Kanis Roads, a large Public Institutional use area is identified. The site was to be a senior/junior high magnet school site. The school districts have not been using the City's plans to locate sites but rather have done their own site selection. While the location is a good one for that type of school, the Plan should not show the use. The area should instead be shown for Single Family use. Two areas of Office use are proposed. Both are expansions of the large office area between Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. In both 2 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • C (Cont.) cases the areas are already zoned for Office use and in one case development has begun. A Public Use area is added at Shinall Mountain, east of Chenal Parkway. This is the site of a new church. While a larger Public Use area is removed to the southeast, down the ridge. This site had been proposed for an Education Park in 1986. This use never materialized. The area is zoned for Single Family and the owner has expressed the desire to develop it for single family use. Thus a more realistic use would be single family. The City Service Center Site has been just north of Chenal Parkway on the east side of the West Loop. However the site has been relocated to the north - from Pebble Beach north on the west side of the West Loop. This relocation will change an area of Multifamily to Public Use north of Pebble Beach, and Public Use to Office north of Chenal Parkway. To the northwest of the area proposed as an Educational Park (changed to Single Family), is an area of Single Family proposed to be Low Density Multifamily. This is the location of a collector - collector intersection and there have been discussion of a park site nearby. Approximately half of'the area is already zoned MF-6. At the proposed intersection of the West Loop and Wellington Village, a Neighborhood Commercial area, is shown and some Office. The Plan had proposed Single Family and Public Institutional use. However, the City had previously approved Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection of these two roads through a zoning action. This commercial area is moved the southwest, since the intersection has been moved. To the west, a Public Use area is changed for Office use and a small amount of Multifamily is proposed for to the area south of the Office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval A to PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to March 28, 1996. By unanimous vote of (7 ayes, 0 noes) the item was deferred. 3 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: D NAME: Hillcrest Local Ordinance Historic District SOURCE: Hillcrest Residents' Association, Historic District Commission and Staff REQUEST: To create a Local Ordinance Historic District for a portion of the Hillcrest Neighborhood. STAFF REPORT: The Hillcrest Residents' Association has requested the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) to begin the formal process of establishing a local ordinance historic district for the Hillcrest neighborhood. Arkansas Statute 14-172-207 lays out a specific procedure for creating a local district, which includes review and comment by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program and the local planning commission. The planning commission is charged with reviewing the information (report) submitted by the LRHDC and to make a recommendation. (The report from the LRHDC includes a letter and several attachments.) The Hillcrest neighborhood is currently a National Register Historic District, and the proposal is for the local district to follow the boundaries of the National Register District. A National Register Historic District is a historic district that is listed in the national register of historic places, the country's official list of historic places worthy of preservation. The register includes individual buildings and sites, as well as districts or neighborhoods that contain structures that are historically or architecturally significant. A national register listing recognizes the significance of these districts and offers investment tax credits for restoration, but includes no restriction on what one can do with the property. Therefore, a structure within a National Register district may be altered or completely demolished at the will of the owner, without any review. Little Rock has a total of four National Register districts: MacArthur Park Historic District, Governors' Mansion Historic District, Marshall Square Historic District and Hillcrest. A local ordinance historic district is designated by a local ordinance to protect the significant properties and historic character of an area. It provides local governments with the means to assure that growth, development and change will occur in ways that respect the historical, architectural and environmental February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • D (Cont.) character of an area. Local designation encourages sensitive new construction or modification of existing buildings and discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. The adopted ordinance contains criteria for development in the local ordinance district and is adopted by the local governing body. A historic district commission has the authority to review and approve construction, reconstruction, alteration restoration, moving and demolition of buildings or structures in a local ordinance historic district. The purpose of the review process is to determine that the proposal is designed to respect and relate to the special character of the district. Little Rock currently has one local ordinance historic district, the MacArthur Park Historic District. The planning commission has sixty days to make a recommendation to the LRHDC. If a recommendation is not made within the sixty day period, the report will be presented to the LRHDC as approved. It is hoped that the planning commission will not find it necessary to take the full sixty days to make a recommendation and act on the request as soon as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 16, 1996) Staff reviewed the item for the Commission, and reminded the members that the statute states that the local planning commission is to review the Little Rock Historic District Commission report and make a recommendation. Other comments were made by staff about the process for establishing a local ordinance district and the Commission's role. Staff said the Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation and the report would be presented to the Little Rock Historic District as approved if no recommendation was made. Staff ask the Commission not to take the full 60 days to act on the report. Commissioner Larry Lichty then spoke and stated that he currently manages property within the boundaries of the proposed district, but the City Attorney's Office did not feel it was a conflict of interest. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's staff, reaffirmed their position. Jean Cockcroft, Paul Crawford and Jim Vandenburg, representatives of the Hillcrest Residents' Association, were present. Also in attendance was Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association. There were no objectors. Jean Cockcroft spoke first and gave some background on the process, starting with the structural survey of the area for the National Register District. Ms. Cockcroft went onto say that the residents' association made a real effort to get the word out to the neighborhood. She said members of the association went door to door to try to speak to as many residents as possible and obtained signatures on a petition in support of establishing a `February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: D (Con local ordinance district. Ms. Cockcroft said that the association found very little opposition to the concept. Paul Crawford then spoke and described the differences between a National Register district and a local historic district. Mr. Crawford said that the primary difference was that a local district required additional levels of review and gave the local jurisdiction more control over demolitions and certain types of structural changes. Mr. Crawford pointed out that there were 1,800 local ordinance districts across the nation. He then went onto discuss the benefits of a local district and they included helping to stabilize a neighborhood, maintaining the character and property values and reducing insurance rates. Mr. Crawford said that a local historic district usually benefits the residents and commercial interests. He continued by saying that a local district will only have a minimal impact on property owners and it will not prohibit modifications to buildings. Mr. Crawford said that a local historic district will allow a process that reviews proposed changes to protect the historical character of the area. Jim Vandenberg then discussed the public involvement and outreach. Mr. Vandenberg said that meetings were held with the residents and petitions were circulated throughout the neighborhood. He then explained the door to door effort to contact as many residents and businesses as possible. Mr. Vandenberg said there were a total of 1,730 structures within the proposed boundaries of the district and 1,100 signatures in support were obtained. At this point, there were some questions about the signatures on the petition vs. the numbers of property owners within the boundaries of the proposed historic district. Jim Vandenberg responded to the questions and said every effort was made to contact all the property owners. Mr. Vandenberg said that there was a public meeting and a number of property owners were present. Discussion continued on the issue of property owners and the number signing the petition. Mr. Vandenberg said that it appeared that a majority had signed the petition supporting the proposed district. Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, spoke and addressed the issue of design guidelines for the proposed district. Mr. Lawson discussed the differences between the MacArthur Park district and the Hillcrest neighborhood. He said that Hillcrest has many different architectural styles and the guidelines should be developed that are compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Lawson concluded by saying that a local historic district was a way of stopping decline within a neighborhood. Comments were then offered by various individuals including several commissioners. 3 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • D (Cont.) - Paul Crawford spoke again and said the process to establish was long and ensured public involvement. Mr. Crawford said the churches were notified and the Hillcrest Merchants' Association provided a letter of support in support of the local district. There was a lengthy discussion about various issues. Jim McKenzie, Vice President of the Quapaw Quarter Association and Hillcrest property owner, said he strongly supported the local district concept because it provides stability and enhances property values. Mr. McKenzie also said that the intent of a local historic district was to enhance the entire neighborhood. There were a number of comments made about the various issues raised during the hearing. The Commission requested more information and it was suggested that the item be deferred. A motion was then offered to defer the item to the February 13, 1996 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Because only seven commissioners were present, Jean Cockcroft, Hillcrest Residents' Association, requested a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 27, 1996 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. 4 NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT/LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT A National Register historic district is a historic district that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is our country's official list of historic places worthy of preservation. It includes individual buildings, structures, sites, and objects as well as historic districts that are historically, architecturally, or archaeologically significant. National Register listing recognizes the significance of properties. and districts. By doing so, it identifies significant historic resources in a community. Boundaries of National Register districts are tightly drawn to encompass only concentrated areas of historic buildings. Information compiled to nominate a historic district can be used in a variety of planning and development activities. National Register listing also makes available specific preservation incentives. and provides a limited degree of protection from the effects of federally funded, licensed, or permitted activities. LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT A local historic district is a district designated by local ordinance and falls under the jurisdiction of a local preservation review commission. A local historic district is generally "overlaid" on existing zoning classifications in a community, therefore, a local district commission deals only with the appearance of the district, not with the uses to which properties in the district are put. The designation of a local district protects the significant properties and historic character of the district. It provides communities with the means to make sure that growth, development, and change take place in ways that respect important architectural, historical, and environmental characteristics. Local designation encourages sensitive development in the district and discourages unsympathetic changes from occurring. This happens through a process called design review, whereby the preservation commission approves major changes that are planned for the district and issues Certificates of Appropriateness which allow the proposed changes to take place. NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT • Identifies significant properties and districts for general planning purposes. • Analyzes and assesses the historic character and quality of the district. • Designates historic areas based on uniform national criteria and procedures. • Sets district boundaries tightly, based on the actual distribution pattern of intact historic properties in the area. • Makes available specific federal tax incentives for preservation purposes. • Provides a limited degree of protection from the effects of federally assisted undertakings. • Qualifies property owners for federal and state grants for preservation purposes, when funds are available. • Does not restrict the use or disposition of property or obligate private property owners in any way. • Does not require conformance to design guidelines or preservation standards when property is rehabilitated unless specific preservation incentives (tax credits, grants) are involved. • Does not affect state and local government activities. • Does not prevent the demolition of historic buildings and structures within designated areas. • Protects a community's significant historic properties and areas through a design review process. • Protects the historic character and quality of the district with specific design controls. • Designates historic areas on the basis of local criteria and local procedures. • Sets district boundaries based on the distribution pattern of historic resources plus other preservation and community planning considerations. • Provides no tax incentives for preservation purposes unless such are provided by local tax law. • Provides no additional protection from the effects of federally assisted undertakings. • Does not qualify property owners for federal or state grants for preservation purposes. • Does not restrict the use to which property is put in the district or require property owners to make improvements to their property. • Requires local commission review and approval, based on conformance to local design guidelines, before a building permit is issued for any "material changes" in appearance to the district. • Does not affect federal, state or local government activities. • Provides for review of proposed demolitions within designated areas; may prevent or delay proposed demolitions for specific time periods to allow for preservation alternatives. i NORrH L/r%f ROCK ARKANSIS t• ffp�f cart j,9 � a�0 a0 M--- I `C '- ,.,�� .....-- w UTTLE 440 CAMMACK ROCK t VILLAGE i `t t� I Pf ssa..fM PAOW `I ac~•' •I•c..K 16� I. .� ,:.q,,� =; si• VICINITY MAP 1'!•..� :. i i I � rig �:...� :. ••�_ �f4v.91 13, �.i � �� .� «i � �.. t ... ;• y \ erg- . s:l ��. lz 60 s• =.. .AR •..•e L U •'�• ~ II . lid I' r 11 - f •a.. � �� Sfif[ : is ��' . I ��i �Ssla:�ris i ' '"�. ��� � "�, yf LjpApr "ITT . Zvi may, r .1 _ > N . •-�.�:.5�,.,�;t;=_ _-_•«,: p `' ' � alp:a ; r I� �•' t � •�• � „t �fst••tE >�I�!�s=��=��r_c� iP d '1 s:'��a/=�s� �rs_f�s=al p • �' ;. �� � I � �. ,. s�s«s:: =as •. J•rs s�sss>•�t��. 7 .. •I -I �.. I .J�.r����rs�«'�a�cs�l��/ � t•--�r v.•rasai 'i HILLCREST NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT February 13, 1996 ITEM NO E FILE NO • Z-5668-B NAME: Pinnacle Properties - conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 12,500 Chenal Parkway OWNER/APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/Barksdale McKay PROPOSAL• A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an automatic car wash as part of a convenience food store with gas pumps development on this C-3 zoned, 1.288 acre site. The applicant is requesting a waiver of Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-298(1)b. regarding the buffering of the menu board speaker location. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located at the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street. This site is a 1.288 acre outparcel of the proposed 17.6 acre Morris Commercial Subdivision. 2. Compatibility with Neiahborh The adjacent property to the east, west and north is zoned C-3, and is part of Lot 1 of the proposed Morris Commercial Subdivision. Further west is the R-5 zoned Trinity Presbyterian Church site. The land across Markham Street to the south and Chenal Parkway to the west is zoned C-3. The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. February 13, 1996 ITEM NO E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained at 2 points, utilizing the interior drives which will service the larger Lot 1, Morris Commercial Subdivision. The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan exceeds the minimum ordinance requirements. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. The shrub spacing along Chenal Parkway and West Markham should average every three feet instead of the eight feet shown on the plan submitted. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Dedicate right-of-way or easements as agreed upon for Chenal and Markham. The right -turn lane on Markham and the deceleration lane on Chenal will be constructed as one lane. Construct sidewalks and ramps according to approved standards and ADA standards. Plans for the construction of decel and widening of Markham are to be submitted for approval with the appropriate striping plans. Obtain grading permits and provide erosion control plan prior to construction. All disturbed areas are to seeded and mulched for erosion control prior to final platting the lots. Stormwater detention analysis is required. A sidewalk should be constructed adjacent to access drives with the development of this lot. 6. Utility and Fire Comments: Fire Dent.: There must be a fire hydrant located within 500 feet of all buildings on this site. Little Rock Wastewater Utility indicates that sewer is available on the south side of West Markham Street. Little Rock Water Works - A water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $330/acre will apply in addition to normal connection fees. Submit plans for backflow prevention to the Water works for approval. An RPZ backflow preventer will be required. 2 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B AP&L - A 15 foot easement is required along the south, east and north property lines. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct a one -bay automatic car wash as part of a convenience food store with gas pumps development on this C-3 zoned site. Included in the convenience food store will be a fast food restaurant (approximately 900 square feet) with a drive-thru window. The convenience food store with gas pumps and fast food restaurant are permitted uses in C-3 zoning, but the automatic car wash requires the conditional use permit review. The convenience food store will be located within the north half of this site with the gas pumps located within the south half of the property. The automatic car wash will be located toward the rear of the site, along the western property line. Access to this site will be gained at two points, utilizing interior drives which will serve the larger Home Depot site. All site lighting and signage will comply with the Chenal Parkway Overlay District Ordinance. Section 36-298(1)b. of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance requires that menu board speaker locations be designed to provide for a solid wall at least six feet in height and twenty feet in length along the opposite lane line. This wall is to be constructed of masonry or wood with a textured finish to diminish sound deflection. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this ordinance requirement, as the menu board is to be located adjacent to the proposed large Home Depot parking lot on Lot 1 of the proposed Morris Commercial Subdivision. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with Utility and Fire Department Comments 4. Compliance with the Chenal Parkway Overlay District Ordinance regarding site lighting and signage. K February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5668-B 5. This lot must be final platted prior to application for building permit. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996) Barksdale McKay and Dickson Flake were present, representing the application. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the Committee, primarily the dedication of right-of-way on Chenal and West Markham and sidewalks. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, discussed the landscape requirements. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that Mr. McKay has requested a waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of a solid wall across from the menu board speaker location for the purpose of diminishing sound deflection. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant failed to send the required notification (to all the record owners of property within 200 feet of this property) for this meeting. The applicant mailed the notices on January 26, 1996. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the February 13, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation, with conditions, on this application as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before inclusion within the Consent Agenda to that effect was made. The motion 7 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent. the Commission for for approval. A motion was passed by a vote of 4 'February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: S-1088 NAME: WINSLOW COURT ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Along Winslow Dr., approximately 1 block north of Hughes St., approximately 0.1 mile east of Bryant St. and 0.25 mile south of Cantrell Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• The Wilson Co., Inc. & Norman Holcomb Samuel L. Davis 2311 Biscayne Dr., Suite 112 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. P. O. Box 7244 5301 West 8th. Street Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72204 223-8651 664-0324 AREA• 5.0 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: NUMBER OF LOTS: 17 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential 1. Approval of a variance to permit a private residential street in an access easement. 2. Approval of a variance to permit the front yard building setback lines to be set at 15 feet behind the access easement line. 3. Approval of a variance to permit access to Lots 7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot access easement. 4. Approval of a variance from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along at least one side of the street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is the subdivision of a 5-acre tract into 17 single- family residential lots. An existing home on the tract is currently served by a 480 foot long private cul-de-sac street, and it is proposed that this existing street, with its cul-de- sac, remain "as is"; that a 60 foot wide, minimum, access easement be platted to encompass the private street and cul-de- sac; and, that for access to the two proposed lots which are to the west of and beyond the existing cul-de-sac, a 20 foot wide drive in a 20 foot access easement be provided. Lots are to be a 'February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 minimum of 9,000 square feet in area, with the average lot being approximately 12,500 square feet in size. Two lots, in the northeast corner of the tact, are to be in excess of 21,000 square feet in area. The applicant proposes a front building setback line at 15 feet behind the access easement, and plans no sidewalks in the subdivision. Access to the subdivision is to be restricted, with erection of a gate at the point of entry to the private street and provision of a card access system. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a variance to permit a private residential street in an access easement. Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a variance to permit the front yard building setback lines to be set at 15 feet behind the access easement line. Approval of a variance is requested to permit access to Lots 7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot access easement. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the requirement that the internal street have a sidewalk along at least one side of its length. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently an "estate", with a 480 foot long private drive extending from the present end of the public portion of Winslow Dr. to a cul-de-sac in front of a single residence located at the southwest corner of the tract. (The cul-de-sac is a 15 foot wide, single -lane design with an island in the center, with an outside diameter of 62 feet.) The site, except for the area surrounding the residence, is heavily wooded. The terrain ranges from fairly level south of the existing private drive, to 50% grades at the northeast corner of the tract. Much of the area north of the existing private drive exceeds the 18% grade which brings the "Hillside Regulations" into play. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, with R-2 being the zoning of all land to the east and south. Land abutting the northeast three-quarters of the boundary of the tract is zoned R-5; the remaining quarter of the land abutting the north boundary is zoned C-3. To the west is an MF-24 zoned tract. There are apartment developments occupying the sites to the north and west. Single-family residences abut the K February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 site on the south and east, with homes facing the public portion of Winslow Dr. between the private portion of the roadway and Hughes St. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The existing cul-de-sac does not conform to City standards. The cul-de-sac must be constructed with a 40 foot outside radius, in lieu of the existing 31 foot radius (62 foot diameter), and a 100 foot diameter access easement must be platted around the cul-de-sac. The planned 20 foot drive and access easement for access to Lots 7 and 8 is not acceptable. The construction of a minimum 24 foot residential street for access to all lots will be required, and the street standards are to conform to the City standards for minor residential streets. At the point where Winslow Dr. becomes a private street, a proper turn -around device must be constructed to provide a turn -around for "SU" (Single -Unit) trucks (e.g., garbage trucks) and other vehicles. The existing 27 foot wide street should be overlaid as part of the development of the subdivision, and any damaged piping, curb and gutter, or inlets are to be repaired or replaced. Grading permits must be obtained, and erosion control plans must be provided prior to construction. All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched for erosion control prior to final platting of the lots. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planing Commission approval of the plat. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9 of the Code of Ordinances) Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water main extension to each lot, and a private fire hydrant, will be required. 3 'February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 Little Rock Wastewater Utility commentd that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. All lots must be serviced by gravity sewer. Abandonment of the existing sewer mains shall be done by the developer only with the approval from the Wastewater Utility. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 10 foot easement will be required along the east boundary line of the tract. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that the developer must verify easement requirements for access to the lots from the private street. The Fire Department noted that the width of the turn -around at the end of the drive must be increased to 20 feet, minimum, and that the outside turning radius is inadequate for access by emergency vehicles. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submitted information did not include, as required by Sec. 31-87 of the Code of Ordinances: 1) source of title of the owner of record, giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) a metes and bounds legal description, with the acreage to the nearest one -tenth of an acre; 3) a breakdown of the average and minimum lot sizes; and, 4) any existing covenants and restrictions. The following requirements, as cited in Sec. 31-89, are deficient: 1) Contours are to be shown at 2 foot intervals for terrain with slopes of less than 10% grade, in lieu of the contours being at 5 foot intervals, as shown (Contours at 5 foot intervals may be used in areas where the terrain exceeds 10% grade); 2) The storm drainage plan and analy- sis must be provided; 3) The names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number, are to be shown; 4) The names of owners of all unplatted land contiguous to the proposed subdivision must be shown, as must the names of owners of all tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 4) The physical description of monuments must be noted; 5) The zoning classification of abutting land is to be shown; 6) Certification that the survey has been filed in the offices of the state surveyor and the circuit court clerk within the last 7 years is to be included in the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy; and, 8) A phasing plan must be provided. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy and the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be completed and executed. 4 ,February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088 Sec. 31-367 through 31-376 is the section known as the "Hillside Regulations". This division "is designed to ensure proper integration of physical improvements in rugged topographical areas...." It applies "to those portions of a subdivision plat that have an average slope of 18% or greater. Such areas of steep slope are recognized as requiring special... development standards...." The division continues, "No lot within any hillside area ... shall be less than 10,000 square feet in area." The lots in areas with an average slope of 18% are to meet this minimum size. The lots in areas with an average slope of 20% are to have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet. Sec. 31-2 defines a "Minor Residential Street" as one that is (for example) a cul-de-sac street which does not exceed 750 feet in length. Sec. 31-209 notes that sidewalks are not required along minor residential streets. The public portion of Winslow Dr., from Hughes St. to the south boundary of the subject tract, is 300 feet in length. The existing private street, from the south boundary of the tract to the center of the cul-de-sac is 480 feet. If a standard residential cul-de-sac is constructed, as required by Public Works, with Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being "fanned" out around it, and with the center of the cul-de-sac set at 450 feet from the south boundary of the subdivision, then the street qualifies as a "Minor Residential Street", and no sidewalk is required. A variance request to the Board of Directors, if this choice is made, is moot. If the cul-de- sac is set further west, then a variance from the Board of Directors will be needed to omit the required sidewalk; however, the 900 turn in the street, permitted in Minor Residential Streets, is not permitted in Standard Residential Streets, and realignment of the street becomes a requirement and complicataes the situation. Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission." Sec. 31-207 states: 11... private streets may be approved by the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards.... Private streets are permissible only in the form of cull -de - sac and short loop streets, and only when it has been determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public service vehicles. The subdivider shall provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets in the Bill of Assurance. This ... shall include water lines, fire hydrants, or other utility facilities." Sec. 31-256 states: "Building lines for residential lots shall be at least 25 feet from each street property line...." The section goes on to say: "(For) lots fronting on culs-de-sac or curved portions of other streets, (the 5 'February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 building setback line) shall not be less than 25 feet from the street right-of-way line at any point." E. ANALYSIS• Practically the entire area north and east of the private street is subject to the "Hillside Regulations", since the grades are at or are greater than 18%. The required analysis, as far as staff knows, has not been done; consequently, staff cannot determine if the subdivision design (i.e.., number of lots and size of lots) reflects compliance with the Hillside Regulations. Either the required analysis needs to be completed, or the applicant needs to seek a waiver of the requirements from the Board of Directors. Public Works has stated that the existing cul-de-sac does not provide the minimum required turning radius for "SU" vehicles, and that this existing cul-de-sac cannot supply the returned turn -around. The Fire Department stated that the existing cul-de-sac is inadequate. Public Works also rejects the proposal to have access to Lots 7 and 8 be provided by a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot access easement. Because of the requirements for the cul-de-sac, and because the need for a variance from the Board of Directors from the sidewalk requirement will be avoided with proper placement of the cul-de-sac, the existing cul-de-sac needs to be abandoned, and Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 need to be re -designed to flair our around a new cul-de-sac. A proper turn -around device must be provided at the end of the public street section, where the roadway becomes a private drive. The applicant has asked for approval of a variance to permit a private residential street in an access easement. The existing street is 27 feet in width, and this meets the requirements for a Standard Residential Street width. This street, because of its length from its intersection with Hughes St. to its termination in the cul-de-sac, and because of the number of lots which is serves, meets the qualifications to be classified as a Minor Residential Street. (The Minor Residential Street standard is a 24 foot wide street in a 45 foot wide right-of-way.) The 900 turn in the street would not be permitted in a Standard Residential Street; however, it is permitted in a Minor Residential Street. The width of the proposed access easement is 60 feet. The criteria for the Planing Commission approving a private street are met, as long as either the street remains a Minor Residential Street (i.e., it is not lengthened beyond the 750 foot length from Hughes St., and the required cul-de-sac is placed as required by Public Works); or, it is reconstructed to take the 900 bend 'February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 out to meet the design standards for a Standard Residential Street. The building line along a minor residential street would normally be 35.5 feet off the curb line (a 24 foot street in a 45 foot right-of-way leaves 10.5 feet on either side of the street, plus the normal 25 foot building line). In the subject situation, there is a 27 foot street in a 60 foot access easement, leaving 16.5 feet behind the curb line to the outside limit of the access easement. With 15 feet for the building line, the building line will effectively be 31.5 feet off the curb line. The effective variance, then, is 4 feet. The applicant explains that it is his desire to reduce the front building setback line in order to increase the separation of the single-family dwellings from the apartment buildings to the north and west, as well as from the homes to the south and east. Public Works has noted that the requested 20 foot private drive in an access easement is not acceptable, and has recommended that the cul-de-sac be re -constructed and located so that all lots have directs access to the street or cul-de-sac. Major problems will arise if the street must be classified as a Standard Residential Street, in lieu of a Minor Residential Street. The 900 bend in the street is too severe to be permitted in a Standard Residential Street; so, the street needs to remain a Minor Residential Street. As a Minor Residential Street, a sidewalk is not required, and a variance to permit development of the subdivision without a sidewalk is moot. There are, then, a number of deficiencies which need to be resolved. Some of the requirements noted from Sections 31- 87, 31-88, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93, are either minor in nature and easily remedied, or are matters which are normally supplied after Planning Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat, but prior to submission of final plats. Some, as cited above, are critical and affect the number and layout of the lots. 7 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1088 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to: 1) The Hillside analysis being completed, and the number and size of the lots being adjusted according to the requirements of the Hillside Regulations; 2) The existing cul-de-sac being removed, and a standard residential cul-de-sac being constructed with its center point being 450 feet from the south boundary of the tract; 3) Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being flared out around the new cul-de-sac, each with direct access to the private street; 4) A proper turn -around device being provided in the private street where it transitions from a public street; and, 5) The Public Works requirements regarding overlaying and repairing the roadway being complied with, as well as the other miscellaneous Public Works and Planning requirements. Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the private street in the 60 foot access easement. Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the front yard building setback lines to be set at 15 feet behind the access easement line, with the effective distance from the back of the curb to the building line being 31.5 feet in lieu of the 35.5 feet which would normally occur. Staff recommends denial of a variance to permit access to Lots 7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot access easement, and recommends construction of a proper cul-de-sac and a re -design of the lots surrounding the cul-de-sac. Staff reports that the requested variance from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along at least one side of the street is not needed, since the street qualifies as a Minor Residential Street, and, since converting the street to a Standards Residential Street (where a sidewalk would be required) would mean major reconstitution of the street. 8 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996) Mr. Norman Holcomb, the applicant, and Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the proposed development, and reviewed with the Committee members and the applicant and his engineer the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the comments concerning the inadequacy of the existing cul-de-sac, and the need to re -design the cul-de-sac as a standard residential cul-de-sac, placed so that Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 could all have frontage on the cul-de- sac. Mr. Scherer noted that the 20 foot drives, proposed for access to Lots 7 and 8, are not acceptable. Staff also reviewed with the applicant and his engineer the requirement to provide a proper turn -around device where the street transitions from a public to a private street. Mr. Holcomb responded that it may be better to simply dedicate the existing private street as a public street, and forego the idea of the gated, private entry. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had realized that the survey which had been used to design the subdivision was erroneous; that the east and west dimension of the property is actually 30 feet less than the survey indicated. Staff reported that a revised plat was prepared, and that it had been submitted to staff on Friday, January 26, 1996. Staff reported that all outstanding issues had been resolved, except for the design of the turn- around at the entrance to the proposed subdivision. Staff reported that, in fact, the reduced length of the street had been helpful in assuring that the length of the cul-de-sac street does not exceed 750 feet in length, permitting it to be classified as a minor residential street. Staff reported that the cul-de-sac had been redesigned to comply wilth Public Works requirements. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, and Mr. Norman Holcomb, the applicant, were present. Mr. Davis said that the needed information, noted in the staff report, had been made, and that the revised plat had been submitted to staff. Commissioners Putnam, Mizan, and Daniel expressed concern that the revised plat had not been submitted to staff earlier, so that the needed staff review could be made and reported to the Commission. Staff reminded the Commissioners and the applicant that the Subdivision Committee meeting had been held on January 4, 1996, and that the deficiencies had been noted at that time. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the preliminary plat approval until the February 13, 1996 Rezoning 9 -February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 Hearing, to permit staff to review the revised submittal and to prepare the proper report to the Commission. The motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, and 2 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Staff reported that, since the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting, the application has been amended; that: 1) the applicant, who was, initially, Bob Wilson, with The Wilson Co., and Norman Holcomb, has been amended to withdraw Norman Holcomb as an applicant, with Bob Wilson continuing as the sole applicant; 2) the requested variance to permit a private cul-de- sac street has been withdrawn, with the applicant intending to improve the street to City street standards and dedicate it as a public street; 3) the turn -around device at the south boundary of the property, since the street will not transition into a private street, is not to be provided; 4) in lieu of a 60 foot private street easement, a 50 foot street right-of-way is to be dedicated; 5) the initial request for a 15 foot setback behind a 60 foot easement line is amended to a 20.5 foot setback behind the proposed 50 foot right-of-way line, with the variance request, then, becoming a 4.5 foot variance; 6)..the requested variance to omit the sidewalk in the subdivision is moot, since the street qualifies as a minor residential street along which no sidewalk is required; and, 7) in lieu of meeting the Ordinance requirement for side lot lines along curving streets to be radial to the street lines, a variance is requested to permit the side lot lines to run due north and south between Lots 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, 9 and 10, and 10 and 11. Staff explained that Sec. 31-231.e and Sec. 31-235 require side lot lines to be radial to curving street lines, "unless a variation will give a better lot plan or allow better utilization of conservation of energy". Staff noted that initially staff had indicated that the lot lines "flare -out" around the cul-de-sac, but that the design professional had chosen to keep the side lot lines parallel with the abutting lot lines, and not adhere to the provision concerning the lot lines around the cul-de-sac being radials, because there are existing and required new utility easements which run north and south, and the lot lines need to follow these easements. The provision in Sec. 31-235 permits the needed variation, and staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the side lot lines abutting the cul-de-sac to be parallel with the lot lines on lots to the east along the street. Staff recommended approval of the 4.5 foot front building setback variance, noting that the land slopes rapidly upward at the north and east sides of the property, and, on the south, there is a need to add distance between the rear of the homes within the subdivision from the side of the existing homes in the addition to the south. 10 .February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1088 The applicant, Mr. Bob Wilson, and the project engineer, Mr. Sam Davis, were present. Mr. Wilson confirmed the staff report and noted that he would comply with whatever requirements were imposed by Public Works in improvements to the street for it to be accepted as a public street. Mr. Davis explained that there is an existing sewer line running along the proposed lot line between Lots 8 and 9, and that there is a needed new stormwater line which is to run along the property line between Lots 6 and 7; these necessitating the variance to permit the side lot lines to run north and south, in lieu of being radials to the street lines. A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat, with the variances requested; i.e., the 4.5 foot front building setback line variance, and the side lot lines not being radials to the street lines at Lots 4 through 11. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions. 11 February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • 1 Z-4807-D Owner: Deltic Farm and Timber Company, Inc. Applicant: Jack McCray Location: NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 36, T-2-N, R-14-W; proposed intersection of Outer Loop Road and Wellington Village Road Request: Rezone from R-2 and C-1 to MF-18, 0-3 and C-3 Purpose: Future development Size: 26.03± acres Existing Use: Undeveloped pasture land SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Undeveloped pasture; zoned R-2 South - Undeveloped pasture; zoned R-2 East - Undeveloped pasture; zoned R-2 West - Undeveloped pasture; zoned R-2 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Please provide area map to show planned alignment of minor arterial such that the alignment can be verified with approved alignment on Perimeter Drive located north of One Source. Dedication of right-of-way including right -turn lanes is required prior to Board of Directors action. Locations of all commercial driveways will require approval. LAND USE ELEMENT The Chenal District Land Use Plan Amendment is a separate item on this agenda; see deferred Item "C". STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 26.03 acre tract from "R-2" Single Family and "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial to "MF-18" Multifamily, 110-3" General Office and C"-3" General Commercial. The 26.03 acres is currently ' February 13, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 Z-4 7-D (Cont divided into 4.5± acres zoned C-1 and 21.53± acres zoned R- 2. The requested reclassification would result in 11.74± acres zoned MF-18, 5.55± acres zoned 0-3 and 8.74± acres zoned C-3. The property is currently undeveloped. It is located in a rapidly developing area which includes Chenal Valley, the Villages of Wellington and St. Charles. The existing zoning pattern was established through the 1989, 172± acre Shackleford farm zoning. The 4.5± acres now zoned C-1 was to be located at the intersection of Outer Loop Road and Perimeter Drive (now Wellington Village Road). That intersection has now been relocated approximately 500 feet to the west and the alignment of Outer Loop Road has been shifted slightly northward. Although staff is basically supportive of most of the changes proposed, one aspect of the proposal stands out as being inconsistent with the Chenal District Plan for this area. The applicant proposes to shift the commercial zoning from its present location to the proposed new intersection of Outer Loop Road and Wellington Village Road. In and of itself this shift makes perfectly good sense, however the applicant is proposing to increase both the area and the intensity of the commercial tract from 4.5± acres zoned C-1 to 8.74 acres zoned C-3. The District Plan has established a Neighborhood Commercial area at the intersection. The proposed 8.74± acres of C-3 zoning goes beyond the intent of Neighborhood Commercial. Staff believes it is more appropriate to allow no more than 5 acres of the tract to be zoned Commercial. The remainder of the 8.74± acres proposed for commercial could be zoned Office to provide a transition from the commercial zoning at the intersection to adjacent single family properties. Staff would recommend that the commercial zoning proposed for the intersection be limited to "C-1" Neighborhood Commercial which is more consistent with the District Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested 11.74± acres to be zoned MF-18 and the 5.55± acres to be zoned 0-3. Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 8.74± acres to be zoned C-3. Rather, staff recommends approval of 5 acres of C-1 zoning at the intersection with the balance of the 8.74± acres to be zoned 0-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) The applicant, Jack McCray, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested on February 12, 1996 that the item 2 0 f ' February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • 1 Z-4807-D (Con be deferred to the next rezoning hearing. Staff agreed to the deferral. A motion was made to waive the bylaws since the request for deferral had not been made 5 days prior to the public hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the March 28, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. f February 13, 1996 ITEM NO • 2 FILE NO.: Z-6090 NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. 2. Site Location: Ferguson - Conditional use Permit 7300 Indiana Avenue Bobbie Ferguson A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a double -wide manufactured home on this R-2 zoned lot. The proposed site is located on the north side of Indiana Avenue, approximately two blocks east of North Mississippi. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This neighborhood is comprised of single family, two-family and multifamily residential uses and zonings. The property immediately west is zoned R-2 and contains a single family residential structure with several two-family residences further west (zoned R-4). The property immediately east of this site is zoned R-2 and contains a single family residential structure. The property further east is zoned R-4/R-5 and contains two-family and multifamily residential uses. The properties to the north of this site are zoned R-5/R-2 and contain a mixture of single family, two-family and multifamily residential uses as well as a pre-school. The properties across Indiana Avenue to the south are zoned R-4 and contain two-family residences. This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a twenty foot wide concrete driveway, located near the center of the property. February 13, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6090 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments 5. Public Works' Comments: Dedicate 5 foot of right-of-way to bring lots into conformance with the Master Street Plan. Residential driveways shall be concrete and have a minimum 5 foot turn out radius and the edge of the drive shall be 5 feet from the property line. The width of the driveway shall be 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the placement of a double -wide manufactured home on this R-2 zoned site located at 7300 Indiana Avenue. The 28 X 70 foot manufactured home will be located near the center of the property. There will be a 20 X 20 foot attached carport on the front of the structure, with a 20 foot wide concrete driveway from Indiana Avenue. A 10 X 10 foot accessory building will be located in the rear yard, near the rear property line. The manufactured home and accessory structure will comply with ordinance setback requirements. This neighborhood is made-up of single family, two-family, and multifamily residential uses and zonings. The proposed manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the Public works Comments 2. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as established by the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. C. Permanent foundation. 2 February 13, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6090 d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single family dwelling standard. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that additional right-of-way would need to be dedicated. There were no further comments on this matter. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant failed to send the required notification (to all the record owners of property within 200 feet of this property) for this meeting. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, and 4 absent. 3 G cc U w cc w 0 z cn T a z z z a w I w 0 I it rZ W< m UJU='ccc0<< mmUm2cc0<CL W FLU z w vza�WOZO�Z — Cl) 0 w z N U �� 0~C Z N 4cc � a 'amm U J — :D 0 z p ccm cc 7j= OC w a IIIA�11 IN MillIIY■ MINEII�RI III mill IN III I I 0 R1Mil1� M mill KEE M I M� EVEN1111111 1 MENNEN Eli 1111 Q m z w cn m Q �I w r a z ®1 February 13, 1996 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.