Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
pc_10 10 1996sub
I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 10, 1996 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the October 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Pam Adcock Craig Berry Sissi Brandon Doyle Daniel Hugh Earnest Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Suzanne McCarthy Ronald Woods Cindy Dawson PLANNING COMMISSION Ron Woods, Chairperson Bill Putnam, Vice -Chairperson Pam Adcock Herb Hawn Sissi Brandon Larry Lichty Mizan Rahman Hugh Earnest Doyle Daniel, Jr. Suzanne McCarthy HEARING PROCEDURE Opportunities to speak will be given to the applicant and others for or against an application. The Chairman will direct the amount of time allotted for each speaker. A spokesperson should be designated for large groups to avoid repetition and save time. Each person speaking is requested to use the microphone, giving first his or her name and address. Persons in the audience are requested to keep conversations to a minimum and to refrain from clapping or other noises. Your cooperation is appreciated. VOTING Six (6) votes are required to approve or deny issues other than procedural matters. Those items failing to receive 6 votes are automatically deferred to the next scheduled meeting as specified by the Planning Commission. If 6 votes cannot be obtained at the second meeting, the item is either forwarded to the City Board with a denial recommendation or is denied if the Commission has final authority over the matter. The Commission's municipal authority is final for subdivision matters, conditional use permits, special use permits and zoning site plan reviews. The Commission makes recommendations to the City Board concerning regular rezonings, planned unit developments, and right-of-way abandonments. APPROVED ZONING ITEMS Zoning matters recommended for approval are forwarded by staff to the City Clerk for placement on the agenda for the next appropriate City Board meeting, which is usually within four (4) weeks. APPEALS Denied rezonings and all conditional use permits and special use permits may be appealed to the City Board of Directors within the 30 days of Commission action. This does not include subdivision matters. Appeals of subdivision actions are to the appropriate court of jurisdiction. OFFICE For information or assistance, you may visit the Department of Planning and Development which is located at 723 West Markham, (on the southeast corner of State and Markham Streets) or call the office at 371-4790. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA OCTOBER 10, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Humane Society of Pulaski County Long -Form PCD (Z-6165) B. Alltel Conditional Use Permit (Z-5737-A) C. Riverdale Mini -Storage -- Site Plan Review (5-1041-A) D. Riverfront Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment (at Jessie Road) (G-23-245-A) E. Rock Ridge Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-1104) F. Vogel -Jones Highway 10 PD-C (Z-6179) G. Dillard's Executive Office Expansion -- Site Plan Review (Z-5098-B) H. Heatherbrae Subdivision Phases 3 and 4 -- Preliminary Plat (5-717-F) I. H & S Subdivision Preliminary Plat Short -Form PD-C (S-1109) J. Dean's Coffee Company Short -Form PD-C (Z-6180) K. Hodges Conditional Use Permit (Z-6181) L. 1201 Ringo Street R-4 to 0-3 (Z-1850-D) L1. 1201 Ringo Street Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home Conditional Use Permit (Z-1850-E) M. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removing a collector N. Parks Master Plan Amendment II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Pinnacle Valley Phase III -- Preliminary Plat (S-992-D) 2. Pinnacle Valley Phase IV -- Preliminary Plat (S-992-E) 3. Berta -- Preliminary Plat (S-1110) 4. Grey Rock -- Preliminary Plat (S-1111) 5. The Hills Subdivision Phase II Preliminary Plat (5-1092-B) 6. Bernay Court Preliminary/Final Plat (S-1108) 1 Agenda, Page 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 2a. Pinnacle Valley Long -Form PRD (Z-6198) 4a. Grey Rock Long -Form PCD (Z-6199) 7. Oaks Brothers Short -Form PD-I (Z-6189) IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 8. Eagle Hill Golf Club -- Site Plan Review (Z-4853-C) V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 8a. Eagle Hill Golf Course Conditional Use Permit (Z-4853-B) 9. Our House Conditional Use Permit (Z-5239-C) 10. Fletcher Conditional Use Permit (Z-5902-A) 11. Evans Accessory Dwelling Conditional Use Permit (Z-6191) 12. Parker Conditional Use Permit (Z-6192) 13. Alltel (Gooch Road) Conditional Use Permit (Z-6196) VI. SPECIAL USE PERMITS: 14. Foy Bed and Breakfast Special Use Permit (Z-5991-B) VII. OTHER MATTERS: 15. Jackson Street Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-253) 6a. Neimeyer Grove Addition Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-254) 16. Parks System Master Plan -- Relocation of Community Park K October 10, 19Y6 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-6165 NAME: HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI COUNTY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 14600 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER• Humane Society of Pulaski County 14600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 227-6166 ENGINEER• The Mehlburger Firm Wes Louder P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 3.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Humane Society Animal Shelter PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Street Improvements along Colonel Glenn Road 2) Filing fee BACKGROUND: This application is the culmination of much effort and time in design, site search and fundraising. Planning Staff has over time assisted in attempts to locate a good affordable properly zoned site with the result that the society has chosen to remain on the existing site. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of the area adjacent. A PCD was chosen as the vehicle since it afforded site plan review for all involved and would probably be better received. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A one lot PCD with one primary structure and removal of all existing building and use areas once constructed. Parking, landscaping and all basic elements of ordinance are addressed. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A tract of land occupied by a varied and nonfunctioning or poorly functioning animal compound. Much of the activity is outdoor. The parking does not meet any standard of design. Maneuvering of cars on the site involves the street creating a hazard. There are multiple buildings and pens crowded onto mostly the east one-half of the site which has over time had many of the trees removed. Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street on the Master Street Plan but is a two lane county asphalt road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has at this writing received numerous calls primarily from adjacent owners opposing the project. There are ten letters in the file from objectors. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. Street improvements for this principal arterial are required. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct 100 percent of culvert crossings to accommodate a 25 year rain event. Street improvements involve widening to 30 feet from centerline with a sidewalk. 1992 traffic count appears to be in the 3000 to 5000 ADT range for the section adjacent to site. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Fire Department/County Plannin Wastewater: Outside service area - No comment Water: Has existing service, contact Water Works if additional service is needed. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: Outside city limits County Planning: OK PA October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the business activity of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north, east and west. Existing natural dense vegetation on site can count toward fulfilling this requirement. The Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscape with interior islands. The proposed western parking area will require 544 square feet of interior landscaping while the proposed eastern parking lot is short of the 1,116 square foot interior landscaping requirement by 243 square feet. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic. The following are the follow-up items on the PCD submittal and basic questions about development. • Timing on existing building removal • Site lighting, how tall, how many, where placed and directed. • On site drainage features • Treatment of outdoor runs • Hours of operation • Signage, building and freestanding • Any overhear doors • Dead animal disposal • Sound systems, external • Dumpster, treatment and pickup time • Number of full time personnel, paid or otherwise. • Will there be a full time on site manager? Planning Division: The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. There has been no change in the area. There is no justification for plan amendment at this time. KI October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 G. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff has been acquainted with some of the needs, issues and players in this development proposal for some time. This includes people on both sides of the issue at hand. We are well aware that this property was not included at the time of the extraterritorial zoning establishment. The concerns that we have voiced to those involved is that how such a project is done is at least as important as whether it is done. There are few sites that we can point to as alternate locations, but each of them has negatives much as the neighborhood at hand. The thorough review of this project by staff, City Engineer and myriad others will surely produce an end -product that can better suit all involved. We do not feel that simply saying no and remain as is a solution. We feel the nonconforming status has some value to staying here and rebuilding. A planned development is an acceptable means of doing so. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the project be approved but that it be retitled as a PD-C in as much as all the uses included within this building are one use. We strongly recommend neighborhood involvement as well as addressing all of the many design issues raised by Planning and Public Works Department in paragraphs D, E and F above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The application was represented by Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm. Mr. Riggins was accompanied by others as agents of the Humane Society. Mr. Riggins presented the application and addressed the concerns offered by City Staff. A lengthy discussion followed with numerous questions about traffic, drainage, construction and others. Chief among these was a question as to whether the Humane Society has met with neighbors. The response was no, and this prompted the Committee to direct they do so, before the public hearing. David Scherer, of Public Works, offered comments on traffic and access plus safety issues attendant to the current poor parking arrangement. The curb cut spacing at less than 300 feet was not viewed as a problem since there is over 200 feet between them and a long property front on the street. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Prior to the initiation of discussion of this item, the Chairman offered extended comment on the effects of the shortage of commissioners at this meeting and the potential effect upon such an item as the one about to be presented. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office offered comments. His comments had to do with the applicant's ability to bring an application back to the Commission of the same or substantially the same request within one year of action. The item about to be heard is a rezoning or a PCD item which has to go to the City Board. So to make a point of clarification, the City Attorney in concurring with Jim Lawson determined that should this item not receive the required six votes for approval or denial, it would go on to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The Chairman then identified that the application belongs to the applicant and they had a right to present their case and proceed with the application before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, injected at this point a statement that perhaps the staff needed to layout the basic issues and offer staff recommendation. The Chairman concurred in this comment and asked that staff proceed. Wood stated that he would make a brief comment and offered that David Scherer, of Public Works, perhaps could offer some commentary on the street improvements that would be involved. Wood proceeded to read the staff recommendation and presented the application as a PCD. He outlined the basic issues and the staff position being one of approval supporting maintenance of a use that is already there. The proposal before the Commission would only improve the circumstances. At the end of Wood's comments, Jim Lawson of the Staff offered a comment. He had received information that there was a property line dispute involved in this issue about to be presented, but this is not an issue the Planning Commission could resolve. The Chairman commented this was a title issue and the title company had apparently made the description error. However, this would be resolved. David Scherer, of Public Works, then came forward to offer a brief comment. Mr. Scherer's comments included notations on the type of street improvements which would be constructed if this plan is approved and the difference between this and the Master Street Plan requirement. He also discussed the spacing on the driveways which would be required normally 300 feet, but in this case they 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 are somewhat closer. The total property frontage is a quite long frontage. Scherer also commented on the drainage issues which have been discussed by the developer and Public Works and those have been covered. Chairman Putnam stated he felt like the Commission needed to backup a little bit to a point where we could identify the spokeperson or persons for the Humane Society and what they wish to do in these circumstances. Wes Lowder came forward identifying himself with his firm as being an agent for the Humane Society in this application. Mr. Lowder stated that he hated proceeding under these current circumstances with the unforeseen attendance problem with the Commission and the large number of people present. These folks have to come back for another hearing at a later date, if deferred. He stated, "even though the Commission might have a problem with the vote, even if someone abstains, the item will still have the opportunity of proceeding to the Board of Directors for a hearing at that level. - Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Lowder if his constituents or the applicants were in accordance with this comment. Mr. Lowder stated that in the interest of time and considering the agenda today and the number of people here, he did not want all of his side of the issue or the involved parties to speak to the Commission on the application. At this point, Mr. Lowder asked that all the persons present in the room on the Humane Society issue being for the application to please stand. There were a number of persons standing, approximately 20 people. At this point, Mr. Lowder identified Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm as being the person who filed this application and attended the Subdivision Committee and that he would offer the presentation. Chairman Putnam directed a question to a Mr. Engstrom, the lead person for the opposition to the Humane Society proposal. The question being whether or not they had concerns about the applicant proceeding with making a presentation of the application before hearing from the objectors. Mr. Engstrom's response was that they should proceed with presenting the application. Mr. Frank Riggins then came forward and proceeded to offer commentary on the application. He offered a brief presentation of the issue and restated some of the points raised by Richard Wood, of the Staff, and the staff recommendation. He first stated this is a 3 1/2 acre tract located along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and this property had been occupied approximately 20 years by the Humane Society with the previous user being a chinchilla or fur ranch of some sort. He stated the proposal before the Planning Commission October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 was a state of the art replacement structure or facility for the existing activities on the property. He briefly identified the existing circumstance for the buildings and grounds being in a state of poor repair with a strong need for upgrade. He stated that the Humane Society is currently involved in a fund raising program to construct this building. He identified the intended structure to serve the kinds of animal maintenance and care which the current building provides, except it would be provided in an enclosed building plus allowing four educational office space, treatment rooms, adoption rooms and such. He stated the primary intent is to keep the animals indoor with some of the cages having guillotine type doors so that the animals can get fresh air and spend some time outdoors as well as allowing maintenance of their cages on the interior. The animals would be retained on the inside of the building at night. He described the proposed plan as allowing more on -site parking so as to resolve the current problems on -site. He stated the plan would provide for landscaping buffers and landscaping in accordance with city code. He also restated a comment offered by David Scherer, of Public Works, that in this redevelopment there will be an additional lane provided on Kanis Road so as to provide a left turn lane to enter and exit the property. He stated the hours of operation will be from 1:00 to 8:00 p.m. from Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and on Saturday and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The facility would be closed to public on Wednesdays. There will be one ground mounted monument type sign on the Colonel Glenn frontage and that the parking lot lighting will be programmed to go off one hour after the facility closes each day. In closing his comments and presentation, he requested the Planning Commission's aid and assistance in the continuance of the Humane Society's program and efforts on this property. He stated that a "no" vote by the Planning Commission will simply keep them there where they are in the current facilities and would keep all of the other elements in place such as the poor parking, backing into Colonel Glenn, outdoor cages, etc. A "no" vote would be rejection of what they feel will be a significant improvement of what is there now. The Chairman then turned his attention to the cards of speakers which had been turned in previously. He identified that there were three persons that had signed cards. After identifying them as being present, the Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes Lowder who came forward again. He stated for the record that there 15+ people present that he had encouraged not fill out cards and simply not overburdening the Commission's time with excessive number of speakers. He closed his comment by saying that he would appreciate these people being granted the same opportunity 7 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 to speak that the opposition would be granted if they are all allowed to come forward to address the issue. Chairman Putnam identified that the Planning Commission had recently established a time line for hearing public hearing items and 45 minutes is the alloted time for hearing a case with both sides of the issue. Mr. Lowder stated that he wished to proceed with the three persons present, who wish to speak to the application. The first one to come forward was Ms. Shawna Skoronski. She made a single statement which was she wanted to hear the opposition's comments before proceeding. A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the procedure suggested by Ms. Skoronski. Steve Giles,of the City Attorney's Office, responded by saying that the bylaws proposed that the applicant present a case then the opposition. Again Ms. Skoronski stated that she would like to hear what the opposition is from those persons present. She appreciates the Commission's position relative to the bylaws, but she would like to know what those items are that she needs to respond to. A lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney and several commissioners as to the appropriateness of the action to be taken with no resolution. The Chairman then asked Ms. Skoronski if there were others present on the "for" side of the issue that wished to address the Commission at this time. She stated that there were not. It was agreed upon between Ms. Skoronski and the Chairman that he then offer the floor to the opposition. Mr. Steve Engstrom came forward as the principal or the leader of the opposition. Mr. Engstrom offered comments to the effect that he was the unofficial leader of the opposition representing most of the people that live in the valley below Ellis Mountain and in close proximity to this application. He requested that everyone present in the room in opposition to this application please stand (20+). He followed up by asking those who live in the valley remain standing and others be seated. He then turned his attention to those persons present who identified themselves as being in support of the application stand, if they lived in the valley. He proceeded with his presentation by identifying himself as an attorney and as resident of the area since March 1974, prior to the Humane Society's movement into the valley. Engstrom indicated that his patio and other outdoor facilities of his residential property had been affected by the activities of the Humane Society. He stated that his attendance at the meeting today was for one primary reason, to act as a panel moderator for a number of persons who wish to make prepared statements. He 8 October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-6165 stated that the opposition had worked diligently toward making a presentation and would present an organized objection in a serial manner. The objections would be presented by topics and by different spokespersons. He then moved his comments to a statement that he felt the Humane Society served a community purpose and was a noble cause. He did not want the issue of their activity in this regard to cloud the issue. He stated the issues which he saw were: first, being the enterprise as it exists and as proposed is simply to big for that site and whether the application presented to the Planning Commission is flawed in several respects with regard to noise and traffic, with waste and with regard to poor management. And last, they have too much going on to put it right here meaning that site. Engstrom identified the first speaker for the opposition as being Andrew Hubert. Mr. Hubert came forward and presented a brief statement then identified that he and his companion had bought a sound level meter to perform certain sound tests from certain distances. He stated that the presentation he was about to make was a recording of the noise level at approximately 60 feet from the outdoor pens. He then proceeded to produce a sound measuring device and a recording device on which he played back a tape of multiple dogs barking. At this point the tape becomes too noisy to pick up conversation which was attempted by Mr. Hubert above the noise of the tape playing and some of comments he offered had to do with the level of sound recording and pain threshold for a person observing these noise levels. He stated that this noise goes on behind the Humane Society at all hours of the day and night. After the playing of the tape, Mr. Hubert proceeded to offer some additional commentary. He introduced and identified a resident of the area by the name of Mrs. Beverly Williamson. He stated that this person had recently had their residence appraised and had been told by their appraiser that the value was reduced by the presence of the Humane Society. He stated that persons in the area were unable to entertain due to constant noise coming from the facility. Mr. Hubert then demonstrated with the assistance of another gentleman the coping skills utilized by neighbors in order to sleep at night. Much of the following conversation was off the microphone and was not legible but had to do with certain plugs that were inserted in the ears in order to baffle the sound disturbance. Mr. Hubert continued his commentary by stating that others in the area utilized the same thing plus fans or other devices to shield themselves from the noise disturbance. He stated a key question then as how all of this new facility provided for a reduction of these issues. He stated the construction of this building will bring the noise closer to residents than current and will 9 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 increase an already intolerable situation and the increase in the number of dogs and traffic would inevitably increase an already bad situation. In closing, Mr. Hubert commented that as far as he knew all other central Arkansas facilities of similar nature are completely enclosed and he did not feel they were able to address the noise factor on the currently owned parcel. Mr. Engstrom then identified the second person as a presenter, Mr. Erin Glitten. Mr. Glitten proceeded to offer comments and in lieu of those that had been proposed by his father. He indicated that his propose in speaking was to address the issue of traffic. He pointed out safety related issues relating to traffic in this section of Colonel Glenn Road upon which a number of the persons present in opposition currently lived. He identified the Humane Society as being located on a short but dangerous stretch of Colonel Glenn Road. He identified the road as being very narrow with no shoulders and open ditches and a continuous set of blind curves. He identified that there were countless accidents over a period of years in this stretch of the roadway. He proceeded to offer statistics from the County Sheriff's Department and the Arkansas State Police which resulted in him saying that 31% of the accidents along Colonel Glenn Road in this part of the county were produced in this area which is 10% of the roadway. He then turned his comments to the Little Rock Master Street Plan and identified that which is required by ordinance and this was a principal arterial with 110 feet of right-of-way and would be at least five lanes with turning movement lanes provided. He also pointed out that the future development to this roadway to that standard is a considerable period off. He stated the right-of- way required for Colonel Glenn Road substantially reduces the amount of area available for the development of the site. He felt the dedication of right-of-way would reduce the property from over 3 acres to about 2.55 acres. This gentleman closed his remarks. Mr. Engstrom then identified the next speaker, Dr. Howard Stephens and Dr. Mary Baeyens. These two speakers addressed the subject of water and waste treatment. Dr. Stephens came forward and identified himself as having been past president of the Pulaski County Humane Society. He stated that he felt like at the time they moved to this location their size was appropriate to the amount of land being occupied and was adequate for the number of animals they were keeping. He identified a flood instance of the earlier occupancy by the Humane Society and the destructive effects of that flood. Most of the facility being under water. He offered photographic evidence of this circumstance. 10 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 As a nonconforming use on this premise within a single family neighborhood, they should go along at their current pace. But once they initiate an application to broaden their activities and expand, they have too much planned for this site and the neighborhood simply does not believe them when they offer the large parking lots, the large building and other activities on this narrow sliver of land. He felt this issue should be placed on a tract of land that is large enough to give an effective buffer. He stated 20 acres somewhere would solve the noise problem and other such activities. He stated that he did not believe them when they said they could not go some place else. At this point, Ms. Skoronski came forward again and offered a question to the staff. The question being did not the staff attempt to help the society earlier in attempting to locate another site that would be adequate. This generated a discussion between several parties of which some were lost because generally they were not speaking into the microphone. Jim Lawson addressed the Chairman saying he thought at this point, Mr. Lowder wanted to address the Commission relatively to a deferral of his application. Mr. Lowder came forward and stated for the record that they would like a deferral and an opportunity to answer some of the neighborhood's concerns. Jim Lawson then offered a statement which ended by offering the staff's assistance in setting up such a neighborhood meeting and identifying the Commission's issues which would be dealt with at that meeting. However, he specifically stated that he wanted to hold a civil meeting and address issues such as were addressed today and not where neighbors said they simply do not want the Society on this property. Therefore, the only purpose of that meeting would be to attempt to clarify the issues. However, this meeting would not be a meeting for him to attempt to gain the neighborhood support for the Humane Society. Commissioner Earnest inserted a thought that the issues to be addressed should be on the material submitted to the Commission. He identified items 1 through 5 on the petition. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, accepted this as the direction for staff and for the meeting. Commissioner Lichty then identified a person in the audience and asked him to come forward to make a comment if he had one to offer. This gentleman identified himself as Cole Williamson who is a resident of the Colonel Glenn area. The question that he posed was did not the Planning Commission offer to this group as well as others at the beginning of the meeting the opportunity to defer their case if they felt uncomfortable with the attendance of the Commission at this time. 11 October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 The question was clarified by Staff and identified by the Chairman that this issue dealt with the quorum present and those persons who may have desired a deferral due to that circumstance. The Chairman then offered an extended explanation of what he attempted to do at the early part of the meeting and it was the applicant's option to pursue the hearing at a later time. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who stated that she hoped the land boundary dispute could be resolved before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson pointed out the Planning Commission could not resolve the land dispute and he felt like the City Attorney's Office supported us in this contention. He stated that he proposes no structure or physical improvement be located in such a fashion as to encroach upon the disputed boundary. Commissioner McCarthy then stated her appreciation to the neighborhood opposition and congratulated them on doing a very good presentation. She also stated for the neighborhood that they should not leave here feeling this was all for naught but the issues were well presented and the Commission did hear them. Maybe once the neighborhood and the applicant are together and discuss this, some of the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion. The motion being that this item be deferred until such time as the meeting can be held under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawson of the Staff. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) There was no representative of the project present. Staff indicated that a meeting between the neighbors and project proponents is scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 1996, 6:15 p.m. at the Metro Plan Conference Room 501 West Markham Street. This meeting was setup at the request of the Planning Commission at their July 18, 1996 meeting. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for action. 12 October 10, 19Y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.• Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Wes Lowder of the Mehlburger firm requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Mr. Wes Lowder, briefly presented the case for the applicants. He indicated that over the course of this project they have met with the neighbors at a night meeting sponsored by staff and fielded many calls from the opposition over the phone. As a result of these contacts the Mehlburger Firm has revised the site plan three times and responded to a 17 point letter from Steve Engstrom. This response letter was dated September 23, 1996. Mr. Lowder stated that the Humane Society has worked three years on this modernization project. Mr. Lowder stated that the Planning Commission needed to decide whether they wanted a modernized Humane Society facility or the inadequate existing animal shelter. Mr. Steve Engstrom summarized the concerns of the neighbors. He stated that the Humane Society was trying via this application to increase their activity on small piece of land. He also said that the primary item that his group objected is the proposed outdoor dog runs. Dr. Marilynn Baeyens spoke in behalf of the neighbors. She discussed the features of other animal clinics and animal shelters in the Little Rock area. Mr. Engstrom discussed the current financial condition of the Humane Society. He indicated that they had been given 20 acres of land that was a more suitable site for this project. Chairman Putnam stated that this was the time for Commissioners to ask questions. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Lowder what are the proposed hours of operation. He responded 1-6 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 11:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Lowder referred to a letter to Steve Engstrom dated September 23, 1996 which outlines the conditions of operation for the proposed facility. Commissioner Rahman asked Mr. Lowder why puppies will not be included in the maximum dog count of 63. Mr. Lowder responded that puppies do not make noise which seemed to be the primary concern of the neighbors. 13 October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 Commissioner Lichty asked about the size and operation of the Fairview Animal Clinic. This facility had been mentioned early by both Mr. Lowder and Engstrom as a typical animal clinic/kennel operation in Little Rock. Mr. Lichty asked the neighbors in the audience to indicate by a show of hands how many own "outside dogs". Commissioner Hawn said he considered the proposal to be appropriate in an industrial area. He asked Mr. Lowder to justify an industrial use in a residential area. Commissioner Adcock asked when will dogs be exercised. A representative from the Humane Society said that dogs will be exercised on a rotating basis between 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Berry asked a number of questions concerning number of animals and type of noise mitigation proposed. These were answered by Mr. Lowder. Commissioner Brandon asked that the Humane Society not allow people convicted of a felony to do court ordered community service work at the faculty. The Humane Society agreed to that condition. Chairman Putnam made some closing statements. A motion was made to approve the application as amended by the previously mentioned September 23, 1996 correspondence from Wes Lowder. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. 14 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5737-A NAME: LOCATION• Alltel - Conditional Use Permit 7525 West Markham Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church/Alltel by Carrick B. Inabnett PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned church property. A height variance has been requested for the monopole tower. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively single family residential, zoned R-2. Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church has existed at this site for 20+ years. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower will not be compatible with the established single-family residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site can be gained by utilizing an existing drive from Mississippi or West Markham Street. Parking will be provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way for Markham Street. Master Street Plan calls for 80 feet or 40 feet from centerline. Mississippi requires 80 feet or 40 feet at intersection plus additional right-of-way as required for a right -turn lane. Thus 50 feet from centerline. 1992 traffic counts are 19,110 for Markham and 11,720 ADT for Mississippi in the area of this intersection. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communication monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned existing Faith Lutheran Church property. The proposed monopole tower will be located at the southeast corner of the existing church building, approximately 25 feet north of the residential property which fronts on Briarwood Drive. The base of the tower will be enclosed by a small masonry wall. Additionally, three (3) crosses will be placed on the monopole. These crosses will be approximately 12 feet in height and 5 feet wide and will be mounted at the top of the monopole, one at each corner of the triangular -shaped antenna structure. The crosses and the monopole will be painted white. The proposed equipment building will be located along the east side of the church building. The equipment building will be located within an open below -ground area which the church utilizes as a playground area. The equipment building will not be visible from West Markham Street or the adjacent residential properties. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the monopole tower. A height of 103 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A Alltel is proposing this monopole tower site in order to provide better service to its cellular customers in this area along West Markham Street. Alltel has expressed to Staff that none of the nearby commercial or industrial zoning (in any direction) and none of the nearby existing structures (the AT&T tower at Rushing Circle, the Southwestern Bell tower at Cantrell and Keightly Road) will suit their needs. Alltel has also informed staff that co -location on this proposed tower would be possible, but it would depend on the particular antenna request. The proposed monopole tower site will be located in the heart of an established single-family residential neighborhood. In staffs opinion, this proposed use will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit application. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower is not compatible with the surrounding established neighborhood. SUBDIVISION_ COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Carrick Inabnett along with representatives from Alltel were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a general discussion relating to the proposed location of the monopole tower. The applicant stated that this particular site is needed based on the existing infrastructure of towers within the city. There was also brief discussion relating to possible co - location on this proposed tower and the proposed location of this tower within the church property. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Carrick Inabnett and Alissa Coffield were present, representing the application. There were several objectors present. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral of the item, based on the reduced number of commissioners present. Sandy Williams addressed the Commission. She stated that the neighborhood met with the applicants on July 7, 1996. She stated her concerns (and the neighborhood concerns) with the proposed monopole. Commissioner Putnam asked Mrs. Williams if the neighborhood would be interested in meeting with the applicants again. Mrs. Williams stated that they would not. Carrick Inabnett spoke on the item. He stated that because of the opposition to the proposal, he would like the application to be heard by the full Commission. He therefore requested that the item be deferred. Commissioner Adcock asked if Alltel would be willing to meet with the other cellular companies regarding co -location issues. Alissa Coffield stated that Alltel would agree to the meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 29, 1996 Subdivision meeting. The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Carrick Inabnett, Alissa Coffield and Tim Rounsaville were present representing the application. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, discussed the necessity of this site and capacity issues with the Committee. Alissa Coffield, also of Alltel, discussed the proposed location of the monopole and equipment building within the church site. There were brief discussions regarding the location of the monopole in relation to the single family residences and the possibility of co -location. The Alltel representatives stated that this monopole would allow a second, future, user at the 70 foot level. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont ) FILE NO Z 5737 A After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The applicant was present. There were several persons present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 agenda, as offered by Chairman woods, due to only eight commissioners being present. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Alissa Coffield, Tim Rounsaville, Jacob Metzer and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. There was one person present in opposition to the application. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Jacob Metzer, of Alltel, gave a brief description of the proposal. Carrick Inabnett, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. He gave a brief explanation of the Telecommunications Act regarding the siting of towers. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rounsaville presented a handout to the Commission. The handout included information regarding the Alltel towers in this general area and technical information supporting the proposed tower. Mr. Rounsaville informed the Commission of the technical reasons that support the need for this tower at this particular site. Alissa Coffield, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mrs. Coffield presented computer generated photographs to the Commission. The photographs depicted the proposed tower as it would appear on the site. Sandy Williams spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. She stated that she represented the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed monopole would be an intrusion on the neighborhood. 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the crosses on the monopole represented a sign and staff had concerns regarding this issue. There was a brief discussion regarding other towers in this general area and the reasons co -location on these existing towers would not be possible. Commissioner Lichty asked if the City Attorney's Office has established any policy on the construction of monopole towers in the City of Little Rock. Mr. Lawson stated that the City Attorney has stated concerns regarding the placement of towers in the City of Little Rock, but no certain policy has been established. There was a brief discussion concerning the height of the tower. Commissioner Berry asked if, with the improving technology, a tower is no longer needed would it be taken down. Mrs. Coffield stated that the tower would be taken down and the property restored if the tower is no longer needed. There was a general discussion regarding the crosses which will be located on the monopole. There was also a brief discussion concerning whether or not there should be time limits placed on the towers. Commissioner Daniel read a written to the Commission. The statement dealt with the wireless communications industry in the City of Little Rock. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. 51 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: S-1041-A NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- REVISED SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN LOCATION: 1024 Jessie Road DEVELOPER: John Haley Riverdale Mini -Storage 875 Union Building Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA• 2.91 ACRES ZONING• I-3 NUMBER OF LOTS• 1 PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights (4) CENSUS TRACT• 15 ENGINEER• BCC GBN (Blass Firm) 303 West Capitol Avenue Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 FT. NEW STREET• 0 PROPOSED USES: Office Space VARIANCES REQUESTED: None at submittal - to be determined by the right-of-way abandonment. BACKGROUND• This parcel of land is partially composed of excess street right- of-way and a remnant of the mini -storage development site. The applicant has previously attempted to gain use of the excess right-of-way for development purposes, he is again on this agenda with a petition to abandon if all requirements of the filing can be met. The developer has not indicated at this time if there will be a replat to make this a separate lot. If that is done, it may relieve some problems with design. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: To construct a 8,737 square foot two story office building with 11 parking places adjacent to the structure and 50 across Jessie Road. The mini -storage and proposed office building will share a driveway from Jessie Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The expansion of the project area of the mini -storage to add office space. This is being accomplished by submittal of a revised Subdivision Site Plan. The end product to be four buildings on a lot. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is a rough parcel of land with drainage and flood plain problems and street problems with a private road. The abutting uses are a mix of Office, Commercial and warehouse. zoning is mixed in the this area ranging from Office to the north and east to Commercial and Industrial along the railroad right-of-way. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Please note address assigned by GIS (1024 Jessie Road). The design of the building will be required to comply with FEMA regulations. The parking is in the flood plain and does not have to be constructed above the Base Flood Elevation. However, the stair towers and elevator shaft will need to be at or above BFE of 256.3, or be flood proofed to this elevation. A grading plan with a Special Flood Hazard Permit is required prior to any construction. See G-23-245-A comments (right-of-way abandonment). Respond to requirements concerning the drainageway and the reconstruction of Jessie Road to Commercial Street Standards. Also, a sidewalk on Riverfront Drive shall be constructed as a part of this project. The proposed drive is too close to existing drive recently constructed and should be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Riverfront Drive (a minor arterial) per City Ordinance. Recommend combining drives and using a common access point. Utilities: Sewer/exist 10" and 27" line available, contact Wastewater. Water/A main extension will be required. Fire Department will evaluate the site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrants will be required. Southwestern Bell Telephone/approved as submitted. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: • Redesign both Lot 1 parking spaces south of Jessie Road. • will there be a plat with this on a separate lot? E October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A • Detail on plan areas for grass or landscaping. • Fully dimension all physical improvements. • Parking lot and landscape area south of Jessie Road to remain for this buildings use. The full on -site buffer width required along Riverfront Drive is 40 feet. The minimum requirement when transferring buffer area to another part of the site is 27 feet. The width of the proposed buffer cannot be determined until the right-of-way issue has been worked out. At this time, the amount of right-of-way to be added to this site from the abandonments is unknown. E. ANALYSIS• The right-of-way line and future property line require resolution prior to determining buffers, landscaping, setback, parking design, etc. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL subject to Riverfront Drive right-of-way Abandonment (G-23-245-A) and with conditions listed in paragraphs C and D of this staff report as revised. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) The staff presented its comments on the submittal, stating that there were too many issues unresolved and the drawing requires more information. The staff felt that it could not deal with the proposed building without knowing how much land is involved. Until such time as the City decides how much land will be turned back to this owner, the lot line on Riverfront Drive is unknown. A lengthy discussion was held on the subject of bringing all data and graphics up to date, by the Thursday, May 23 deadline. Someone raised a question about the railroad ownership and their participation. It was staff position that the railroad must sign as a participant. A general discussion then involved the right- of-way and why the abandonment issue is before the Commission. Staff question about a need for a plat produced a response from the applicant that a plat would not be done, this will be one lot. Richard wood noted for the record that a variance will be required if this is all considered one lot, the depth of the lot east/west requires a 40 foot buffer along Riverfront Drive. The present plan cannot handle that. A brief discussion involved 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1041-A sidewalk and the proposed jogging trail that Parks Department is developing. No resolution was gained at the approach to in -lieu or building it. The applicant then accepted the Committee request that the requirements noted be dealt with by next Thursday, May 23, 1996. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 28, 1996) This applicant responded to the many unresolved issues by requesting in writing a deferral of the application to July 18th and the Subdivision Committee on June 27th. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) As requested by the applicant in writing, a deferral of this item was determined to be in order. The Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to July 18, 1996. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee meeting in as much as the applicant had not made contact with staff concerning resolution of the street abandonment or the site plan review. The Staff and Committee would suggest that the item be carried forward at least one additional review period which would place the item before the Commission on August 29, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff offered the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission on August 29, 1996. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) There was no committee discussion on this item. The applicant is still working to resolve the companion Riverfront Drive right-of- way abandonment (G-23-245-A). This item is to deferred until the October 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) A revised project was shown consisting of a two story office building with 11 spaces adjacent to the building and an additional 50 south of Jessie Road. It appears that all issues to resolve the companion Riverfront Drive right-of-way abandonment (G-23-245-A) have been solved. The item is to be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. The project has no additional deferrals to use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Planning Commission denied the companion road right-of-way abandonment (G-23-245-A). Mr. Jones suggested that this item (S-1041-A) be deferred until the Board of Directors hears item (G-23-245-A). A motion to defer this item until the Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1996 passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 5 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: G-23-245-A Name: Location: Owner/Applicant: Rec;uest Riverfront Drive Exclusive Right -of -Way Abandonment Located at Riverfront Drive (at Jessie Road), north of and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right- of-way. John Haley and Chris Robertson/Fred Chilcote To abandon the excess right- of-way for Riverfront Drive, north and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. The applicant has not been able to obtain all necessary documents needed for staff to conduct a proper review of this item. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a deferral of this item until the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission Subdivision Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The applicant is working toward obtaining all necessary paperwork to complete the application process. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The applicant is continuing to work toward obtaining all necessary documents needed for staff to review the item. The applicant has submitted at letter requesting that the item be deferred until the August 29, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of August 29, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the August 29, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred to the Subdivision Agenda of October 10, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. The Commission waived the by-laws with a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position, as this was the applicant's third request for deferral. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way Public Works recommends approval as long as a right-of- way of 15 feet behind existing curb line for Riverfront Drive or a minimum of 90 feet of arterial street right- of-way is maintained. The small tract to the west can be closed and should be maintained by property owner to provide sight distance for driveway and railroad intersections. The drainage easement normally reserved when a right-of-way is closed shall also be closed because applicant plans to maintain and construct underground facilities to handle the 100 year drainage from this basin. Parks and Recreation requests that the entire area of the proposed Parcel No. 1 abandonment be retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. Mark 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-245-A Webre, of Parks and Recreation, will submit additional details regarding this request. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right- of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets Forty-five feet of right-of-way for Riverfront Drive will be retained. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Parcel 1 of the proposed abandonment contains the 30 foot wide Jessie Dr. access and utility easement, with the remainder of the parcel primarily overgrown with weeds and brush. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and utility easement to the north. Parcel 2 of the proposed abandonment is primarily overgrown with trees and brush. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, Parcel 1 of the proposed abandonment will be developed into a new office building and parking lot. There are no plans for Parcel 2 at this time. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The area contains mainly a mixture of office and commercial uses. The uses include office, office - warehouse and mini -warehouses to the north and retail commercial to the south. Abandoning these rights -of - way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the Hillcrest Residents Association have been notified of the public hearing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities AP&L: No objection to abandonment. Retain 30 foot wide Jessie Road as utility and ingress/egress easement (15 feet one either side of centerline). ARKLA: No objection to abandonment. Retain Jessie Road as ingress/egress easement. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-245-A Southwestern Bell: No objection to abandonment. No easements needed. L.R. Water Works: No objection to abandonment. Retain Jessie Road as ingress/egress easement. L.R. Wastewater: No objections to abandonment. A 20 foot easement is required (10 feet on either side of the sewer main). 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to John Haley and Chris Robertson. 10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues Abandoning this right-of-way will not effect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive abandonment subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant and Parks and Recreation must reach an agreement regarding the bikeway path area. 2. Jessie Road (36 foot right-of-way) must be retained as a utility and ingress/egress easement. 3. A 20 foot utility easement must be retained as required by Little Rock Wastewater Utility. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Fred Chilcote was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the right-of-way abandonment and the related site plan review. David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. Staff stated that the applicant must submit the required Little Rock Wastewater Utility letter by September 26, 1996. Staff also pointed out that the applicant has made provisions to dedicate a 12 foot wide bikeway path for Parks and Recreation. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-245-A After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Fred Chilcote was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval as noted in the "Staff Recommendation". Staff informed the Commission that the Department of Parks and Recreation was opposed to the right- of-way abandonment. Fred Chilcote spoke in support of the application. Mr. Chilcote gave a detailed description of the proposal for right-of-way abandonment and the proposed site plan. Chris Robertson also spoke in support of the application. Mr. Robertson stated that he was trying to improve the appearance of the property. Larry Jones, Planning Staff, read a letter from Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters. The letter was in opposition to the application. Mark Webre, of Parks and Recreation, spoke on the application. Mr. Webre stated Parks and Recreation wishes to retain the entire area of proposed abandonment for park open space to be incorporated into the City's bikeway plan. Mr. Webre stated that the bike path proposed by the applicant would not be acceptable to Parks and Recreation. There was a brief discussion regarding Parks and Recreation's request. Mr. Robertson discussed further issues to support his proposal. A motion was made to approve the right-of-way abandonment application. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 5 nays and 2 absent. 5 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: S-1104 NAME: ROCK RIDGE ROAD SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Rock Ridge Road at Highway 10 (immediately south of Lake Maumelle) DEVELOPER• Bob Beason 4125 Studer Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER• White-Daters 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 13.1 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 750 ZONING: None -outside PROPOSED USES: Single Family Jurisdiction of Zoning PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND• 20, Pinnacle 1) Boundary Street Improvements 2) Double frontage lots This is a semi -rural area in the west end of the planning jurisdiction. The area is in the design and development stages of a water improvement district. This district will probably generate a number of plats in the near future as the mains are installed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop a residential plat utilizing the current Rock Ridge Road and building other improvements to less than full urban standards. Septic tanks will be used in as much as there is no sanitary sewer system in the area. No phasing plan was submitted but it is assumed that the plat will be phased to meet market need for the area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The topographic information is incomplete but it appears that the land rises 30± feet from Hwy. 10 to the east property boundary. There are no abrupt changes in grade. This hill mass is generally undisturbed. . October 10, l9j6 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1104 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction. Stormwater detention, ADPC&E permit, USACE permit, grading permit, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. Since there does not exist a Master Street Plan for this area, recommend deferral or approval based on the assumed standards. Highway 10 is a principal arterial and would require 110 feet of right-of-way with added lanes to bring to 30 feet from centerline. Staff can support a 5 foot utility and drainage easement with the existing shown 50 feet of right-of-way due to absence of a MSP. Staff does feel that since Highway 10 in this area is still rural in nature full Master Street Plan widening is not appropriate. However, staff would support a waiver of the full standards (assuming they are adopted prior to approval of this preliminary plat) with the condition that Highway 10 be widened to accommodate left turns into the two streets with appropriate shoulders. These streets are in a curve with speeds in excess of 55 MPH. 1992 traffic count is 5860 ADT similar to current collector volumes. Current pavement is 28 feet in width, collector standard is 36 feet. The cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to residential street standards. The lengths would indicate a need for normal residential street standards, including sidewalks. AHTD permits will be required. Street lights are required for this street and subdivision, coordinate their construction with street construction. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment Water: Execution of water service agreement is required. water main extension required. Arkla: OK AP&L: No response, this writing Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: 50 feet minimum radius on turn- around. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1104 County Planning• • Concern expressed about water quality in Maumelle water shed. • Septic systems should be closely reviewed by county sanitarian. • Consider width of Rock Ridge if additional lots are added. It is county maintained. • Open ditch section for improvements is OK provided design is approved by county and bonded one year. Planning Division: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape No comment Planning Staff The following are deficiencies in the submittal and plat design. • No survey stamp included. • Source of dedication or right-of-way easement on current Rock Ridge Road. • Will there be phasing of lots. • Source of title - ownership certificates. • 750 feet unnamed street • Location of water line to service site, will septic tanks work/perk tests. • Boundary data deficient, need angles, bearings etc. • All building lines • Contour information incomplete • Abutting plats and/or owners • Legal description missing • Phasing plan • PAGIS Monument • Engineer certificate blank • Show pavement and right-of-way width on Highway 10. • Bill of Assurance is required. • Street names required, show. • Corner radii at Highway 10 on both streets G. ANALYSIS• This plat is viewed by staff of Planning as well as Public Works to be to far out of conformance to deal with at this fl October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1104 meeting. There are a number of areas of requirement that this owner may not be willing to address, such as street improvements. This engineer is placed in a difficult situation by not having done a proper survey, but working from an old survey. Much of that survey information is not shown here. This owner needs to discuss this matter with his engineer, redraft his application and return for the August Planning Commission meeting. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the applicant's request to withdraw the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was present as was Tim Daters, the engineer for the plat. Both Planning and Public Works Staff outlined what were, staff felt, to many issues to resolve at Subdivision Committee. Mr. Daters offered comments concerning the manner of the filing and what they had hoped to accomplish. A number of questions were raised by Committee members as to why the filing when it was apparently not ready. The owned indicated he was somewhat taken unaware by the staff's requirements and inability to support waivers. After commentary on how to proceed the owner decided he would agree to deferral. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final disposition. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff identified for the Commission this applicant's request for deferral to August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing. The request is based upon the Subdivision Committee meeting wherein the engineer and the owner observed more problems and developing issues than they were prepared to deal with. They have requested time to reconsider their application in time for consideration in the next review cycle of the Subdivision Committee. Staff feels comfortable with the deferral. A brief discussion of the matter was place this item on the Consent Agenda the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 followed by a motion to for deferral. A vote on absent and 1 open position. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1104_ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) There was no discussion of this item. The engineer submitted a letter requesting a deferral until the next Planning Commission meeting. This item is to be deferred until the October 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, project engineer indicated that the applicant wishes to withdraw the preliminary plat application. This item will be withdrawn from the October 10, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The project engineer requested that the preliminary plat be withdrawn. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for projects to be withdrawn. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for withdrawn items. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 5 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6179 NAME: VOGEL-JONES HIGHWAY 10 -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 14103 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Vogel -Jones Realty Company 11212 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 0.77 ACRES CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: ENGINEER: Robert Brown Development Consultants, Inc. 10809 Executive Center Dr. Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72211 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 #1 River Mountain None FT. NEW STREET: 0 This site currently consist of an older frame and rock veneer single family home which has been vacant for some time. This dwelling is to be demolished. To the rear of the house is a large pile of construction debris including asphalt shingles. A single wide mobile home staddles the eastern property line. The mobile home will be relocated from the property. This item was deferred from the August 29, 1996 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A one lot PD-C with a single commercial use is proposed. The applicant will construct a six stall self-service car wash with three vacuum unit stations. Bermed landscaping and a monument sign are planned along the Highway 10 frontage. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The 0.77 acre site is largely vacant. It will be cleared for new construction. The rear portion of the site is within the floodway area and will not be developed. A mini - storage use is located on the west boundary and residential October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6179 to the east. A Kroger Food Store is situated to the northwest across Highway 10. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS None to date. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS A grading permit and a development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to building permit. A storm drain shown to be extended through site, must according to ordinance with principal arterials carry a 1 in 50 year storm. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet for this principal arterial from the centerline of Arkansas Highway Department 10 and sidewalks as shown to be constructed on frontage are required by the Arkansas Highway Department to be 6 foot sidewalks versus shown 5 foot. An AHTD permit for the concrete apron will be required prior to construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Water: No objection. AP&L: Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: OK Parks Department: Dedication of floodway to Parks. Counter Planning: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN Landscape: The proposed buffer along Highway No. 10 averages 28 feet in width. The Highway No. 10 Overlay District calls for a buffer width of 40 feet in this area. The average buffer width required along the eastern and western sides is 25 feet. The plan submitted provides this width when averaged out though it drops to as low as six feet along the western perimeter. Since the site is considerably below the grade of Highway No. 10 at least fifty percent of the trees within the front landscape buffer will be required to be evergreen. A six foot high opaque screen, either dense evergreen plantings or a wooden fence with its face directed outward, will be required along the eastern and southern perimeters of the site which are adjacent to residential properties. A sprinkler system to E October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6179 help water plants is required. The proposed dumpster must be enclosed on three sides with an eight foot high wall or wood fence. The following represent project specific conditions or unresolved items. • Existing frame and rock veneer house to be removed. • Asphalt shingle dump to be properly removed and disposed of in an approved landfill. • Single wide mobile home to be removed from property. • Provide detailed lighting and signage plan. Planning Division The site is located in the River Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial. There is no land use issue. G. ANALYSIS• The proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Staff has received no comments of this proposal. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of this submittal subject to the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this staff report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Mr. Robert Brown represented the applicant. Planning Staff asked Mr. Brown to provide a specific list of uses for the site. Parking opportunities are limited since approximately one-third. on the property is within the floodway. Mr. Brown indicated he had submitted to staff a list of 50 uses from "C-3" designation. Staff again asked for a more limited list of specific uses. Public works will require 55 feet to be dedicated from the centerline of Highway 10 and construct a sidewalk. Staff noted that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends Commercial. The Committee recommended this item be forwarded to the full Commission for action. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6179 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The Staff offered the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Robert Brown presented the project. There was little discussion on this item and no questions. The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Mr. Robert Brown presented the project to the Planning Commission following the staff report. Lori Sullen and Woodey Taylor made a joint presentation against the proposed self-service car wash. They were concerned about potential noise that would affect Mr. Taylor's adjacent property. Commissioner Adcock asked Robert Brown about screening and hours of operation. Mr. Brown responded that the facility will be open 24 hours a day. He also stated that there will be a perimeter fence and landscaping. In a response to a question from Commissioner Brandon, Mr. Brown said they would make their best effort to preserve existing trees. A motion to approve this rezoning request subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 4 October 10, 15_1 ITEM NO.• G FILE NO.: Z-5098-B NAME: DILLARD'S EXECUTIVE OFFICES EXPANSION - SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: 1600 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER• Dillards 1600 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72207 AREA• 17.5 ACRES ZONING• 0-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT• 9 VARIANCES REQUESTED: NUMBER OF LOTS• PROPOSED USES• #5 Downtown STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: ENGINEER• Tim Daters White-Daters Engineers 401 Victory Street 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Of f ice None at this time. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the applicant's request to defer the item until the November 21, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Staff was unable to review and comment on the submittal because it lacks a specific project description. The applicant's engineer has requested a deferral. The Committee recommended this item be deferred until the September 19, 1996 Subdivision Committee meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. October 10, 19y6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5098-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, project engineer indicated that the applicant wishes to defer the Site Plan Review application. This item will be deferred to the November 21, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. E October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: H FILE NO.: S-717-F NAME: HEATHERBRAE SUBDIVISION PHASES 3 AND 4-- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of Taylor Loop Road east of Gooch Road and west of Glen Valley Drive DEVELOPER• Woodhaven Development Company 8721 Warden Road Sherwood, AR 72116 ENGINEER• William L. Dean Civil Design Incorporated 15104 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: Phase 3 - 3.49 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: Phase 3 - 12 lots Phase 4 - 3.06 ACRES Phase 4 - 10 lots One Open Tract Lot FT. NEW STREET: 834 LF PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• This proposal will create an additional 22 single family lots in the Heatherbrae Subdivision which was initially final platted in 1987. Approximately, seven finished lots from previous phases remain vacant at this time. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create 22 new single family residential lots in two phases as an extension of the existing Heatherbrae Subdivision. Glenn Valley Drive will be extended to the west. Heatherbrae Court and Glenstone Drive will be developed running north to south. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land is flat, heavily wooded and covered with dense underbrush. Existing phases of Heatherbrae Subdivision are immediately adjacent to the east and south. Glen Valley Drive stubs into the site and will serve as access to the site. The Gooch Drive residential neighborhood is located to the west and south. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • H (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-717-F C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None to date. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Continue sidewalk on Glen Valley to intersection. Drainage easement shown on the west property line must contain all flows off site shown to be in excess of 453 cfs, staff recommends that due to flows in this drainage that the easement shall be an open space tract and not contained on individual lots. If the drainage is to be contained in an open ditch, 4 foot chainlink fencing will be required adjacent to drainage easement to restrict access from small children, safety concerns raised by the other existing drainage ditches in the City has caused this to be a policy adopted by the Board of Directors. Ownership must be established to provide tailout of the drainage to the north to properly intercept the existing floodway. This subdivision cannot begin construction until the engineering plans are approved with proper development permit, NPDES, and grading permits due to past problems with Phase 2. An above ground drainage easement will be required on Phase 2, 3, and 4 lots to accommodate the major storm event as required by City Ordinance. This major drainage easement will be graded and restricted as to use by lot purchasers concerning construction of fences, landscaping and fill as required by Ordinance. The pipes and ditches planned as shown have not been approved by the engineering staff. Ditches are generally not acceptable and may require stormdrain piping or concrete lining. Stormwater detention shall be provided for Phase 1, 2, 3 and 4 this construction. Stormwater detention from previous phases 1 and 2 was deferred to phase 3. Current traffic count numbers for Taylor Loop are not available. Subdivision will add approximately 220 trips per day to traffic volume on Taylor Loop. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Water: Water main extension required. AP&L: OK Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK 2 October 10, 1916 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-717-F Fire Department: Turnaround for fire apparatus should be at least 50 foot radius. County Planning: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: • Carry lot lines across open tract. • Plot rear lot lines for Phase III cul-de-sac lots. G. ANALYSIS• The developer proposes to add 10 lots in Phase 3 and another 12 lots in Phase 4. The lot configuration at the cul-de-sac on the proposed Glenstone Drive should be changed. Public Works is requiring that stormwater detention for Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be provided at this time. An open tract lot was added along the western boundary of the proposed plats to accommodate drainage. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the preliminary plats. Approval is subject to the conditions listed in paragraphs D, E, and F of this staff report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, project engineer, was present to answer questions. Planning Staff noted that Phase 3 Lot 3 did not meet minimum lot depth requirements. Staff noted that street radii and right-of- ways need to be shown on the preliminary plat. David Scherer discussed drainage concerns that impacted the two existing phases as well as phases 3 and 4. He indicated that drainage was originally planned to exit phase 2 through a pipe situated between Lots 20 and 21 then continuing off -site through an easement into a creek. This offsite easement was never obtained and the drainage structure not completed. Public Works is now requiring an above ground drainage system on an open space tract rather than an easement covering lots in Phase 2, 3 and 4. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • H (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-717-F PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, project engineer, requested that the two cul-de- sac streets be shown as minor residential streets. He also asked that the rear setback line along the western boundary of the subdivision be modified. This would include Lots 6-10 in Phase III and Lots 1-4 in Phase IV. The applicant is proposing to reduce the rear setback requirement for these lots from 25 feet to 15 feet. This request is in order to "...achieve the utility of those particular lots for the particular sizes of houses that are anticipated." Mr. Dean is requesting this variance in order to offset the Public works requirement of a open tract for drainage ditch purposes. Commissioner Daniel asked several questions concerning Mr. Dean's statement. Following this exchange Larry Jones recommended that the item be sent back to Subdivision Committee to review these last minute revisions to the preliminary plat. Commissioner Adcock asked that the applicant's request a deferral. Mr. Dean requested a deferral to October 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. A motion to defer the item to October 10, motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, position. Commissioner Brandon was not in vote on the motion. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: 1996 meeting. The 3 absent and 1 open the room during the (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, project engineer, explained the changes in the preliminary plat that have been made since the August 29 Planning Commission meeting. A 20 foot wide open tract lot has been added the length of the western boundary of Phases III and IV. This open tract area will be utilized for drainage purposes. There are no changes in the number of lots on roadways proposed. There were no questions from members of the Subdivision Committee. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) This item was included in the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 4 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: I FILE NO.: S-1109 NAME: H&S SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On west side of Crystal Valley Road south of Whippoorwill Lane DEVELOPER• Harold D. and Shirley Smith 18201 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Rodney and Chandra Russell B. T. Armstrong and Assoc. #30 Art Pond Road #2 Pinnacle Dr. Conway, AR 72032 Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 13.37 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 Single Family District PLANNING DISTRICT: #17 Crystal Valley CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: Single Family and Planned Commercial Development 1) Street Improvements on Crystal Valley Road 2) Lot depth -to -width ratio for Lot 1 BACKGROUND• This preliminary plat seeks to legitimize 30 foot strip along the southern boundary of what is shown as Lot 1 which was recently sold from Mr. and Mrs. Smith to Mr. and Mrs. Russell. A companion application to the preliminary plat will also allow Mr. Smith to construct an office/warehouse building on property shown as Lot 2 on the plat. (PD-C Z-6180) October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1109 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This preliminary plat will create three lots. Two will accommodate existing single family residences and one for a proposed Planned Development Commercial use. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land is heavily wooded and gradually slopes to the southwest. A one-story frame home with a shop out building is located on Lot 1. A single family story home is located on Lot 3 with detached storage and greenhouse structures. Proposed Lot 2 is vacant. Public Transportation There is no service to these lots. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Grading and drainage plan with soil loss calculations is required prior to construction. Stormwater Detention will be required. Crystal Valley Road is a principal arterial per the Master Street Plan. Dedicate 55 feet from centerline according to the standards set for principal arterial particularly the radius required for the horizontal curve is to be 900 feet. 1/2 Street improvements for frontage are required by ordinance, staff recommends commercial widening to create center -turn lane and tapers for business and a deferral of the remaining improvements until further development occurs or five years. 1992 average daily traffic was 1,840 vehicle per day. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING/LANDSCAPE: Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Water: No objection. Execution of pre - annexation agreement and approval from City required. AP&L: No comment 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1109 Fire Department: Hydrants installed no more than 800 feet apart. Access to structures require a 15 foot driveway that will support fire apparatus. County Planning: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: • Label 900 foot right-of-way on Crystal Valley Road. G. ANALYSIS• This plat will create three parcels. Lots 1 and 3 have existing single family homes. An office/warehouse building is proposed on Lot 2. The applicant is request a waiver of street improvements on Crystal Valley Road. Staff recommends widening to create a center -turn lane for the proposed business on Lot 2. A deferral of the remaining improvements is recommended for up to five years. (See Public Works comments) H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the preliminary plat without a waiver of street improvements. Staff recommends that a portion of the Crystal Valley Road improvements be deferred when other development occurs or up to five years as outlined in the staff comments of paragraphs D, E and F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Mr. Jim Summerlin and Harold Smith were present to answer questions. Planning staff asked that the 55 foot proposed street dedication from centerline of Crystal Valley Road be shown on the preliminary plat. David Scherer required adjacent to Lot 2 commercial widening to create a center -turn lane and tapers be required. The remaining road improvements can be deferred up to five years. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1109 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) When the meeting was called to order, it was apparent that no more than 8 commissioners would be present. The Planning Commission Bylaws require a minimum of 6 affirmative votes for an item to be approved. Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Harold Smith requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Harold Smith introduced his new engineer B. T. Armstrong. The engineer presented the project to the Subdivision Committee. David Scherer indicated that Public Works was requesting a minimum 900 foot radius for the horizontal curve on Crystal Valley Road. Mr. Smith stated that he objected to this requirement. Commission Putnam told Mr. Smith that he would need to take it up with the full Commission. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Harold Smith indicated his objection right-of-way requested by Public Works. the need for the public right-of-way in stated that the 15% in -lieu hardship fee this case. (OCTOBER 10, 1996) to the width of the David Scherer explained this location. He also may be appropriate in Commissioner Hawn stated that staff had made a reasonable compromise in requesting the 900 feet right-of-way on Crystal Valley Road. He said that if the applicant did not want to grant that right-of-way, then he did not have to go through with the preliminary plat and rezoning. A motion to approve the preliminary plat the staff report. The motion passed with 3 absent. subject to conditions in 8 ayes, 0 nays and 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: I (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1109 A motion to approve a waiver of the lot depth -to -width ratio for Lot 1. The motion passed with 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 5 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: J FILE NO.: Z-6180 NAME: DEAN'S COFFEE COMPANY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On west side of Crystal Valley Road south of Whippoorwill Lane DEVELOPER• Harold and Shirley Smith 18201 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER• B. T. Armstrong & Assoc. #2 Pinnacle Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 1.23 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2/Proposed PCD PROPOSED USES: Office/Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: #17 Crystal Valley 1) Street improvements on Crystal Valley Road BACKGROUND• This development is proposed for Lot 2 of the companion preliminary plat (5-1109). The applicant wishes to relocate his existing business to this location. The lots situated to the north and south of this site have existing single family homes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant seeks permission for Dean's Coffee Company to construct a 4,500 square foot office/warehouse building on property presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Smith who are also the owners of Dean's Coffee Company. The proposed office uses are allocated 1,000 square feet and the warehouse 3,500 square feet. Eight parking spaces are shown on the site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The vacant site is wooded and gradually slopes to the southwest. A one story frame home with a shop outbuilding is located to the north. A single story brick home is October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6180 located to the south with detached s structures. There are three existing of Crystal Valley Road south of this Public Transportation None in this area C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: torage and greenhouse PCD's along both sides proposal. Staff has received one letter. Mr. Rodney Russell who owns the property immediately to the north of this site at 17125 Crystal Valley Road expressed concerns in respect to the architectural design and layout of the proposal. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Crystal Valley Road is a principal arterial per the Master Street Plan. Dedicate 55 feet from centerline according to the standards set for principal arterial particularly the radius required for the horizontal curve is to be 900 feet. 1/2 street improvements for frontage are required by ordinance, staff recommends commercial widening to create center -turn lane and tapers for business and a deferral of the remaining improvements until further development occurs or five years. 1992 average daily traffic was 1,840 vehicle per day. A grading plan with soil loss calculations is required prior to construction. Existing street is 23 feet wide with open ditch without sidewalk. The driveway needs to be 25 feet from property line and the turn -out must be within the property corner extension perpendicular to centerline of roadway. Stormwater detention will be required. E. UTILITY COMMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Outside service boundary Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Water: Execution of pre -annexation agreement and approval from city required. AP&L : No comment Fire Department: OK County Planning: No comment 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6180 F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Additional screening will be required along the northern, southern and western site perimeters in areas where the existing natural vegetation are unable to provide the year-round screening necessary. This can be accomplished with additional evergreen plantings where needed. Issues: The following are unresolved items on the PCD submittal. • Show 900 foot right-of-way for Crystal Valley Road. • No stacked parking will be allowed. Planning Division: The site is located in the Crystal Valley District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Community Shopping and Single Family. There is no land use issue. G. ANALYSIS: The applicant has addressed the staff questions concerning this submittal. Staff has received no additional comments from the public on this proposal. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the single use PD-C for "Dean's Coffee Company" subject to the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E, F of this report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Mr. Jim Summerlin, project engineer, and Mr. Harold Smith were present to answer questions. Planning Staff asked that the 55 foot proposed street dedication from centerline of Crystal Valley Road be shown on the site plan. David Scherer will require a turn -lane at the entrance from Crystal Valley Road. The access drive needs to be moved a minimum of 25 feet from the property line. The remaining road improvements can be deferred up to five years. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) _ _ FILE NO.: Z-6180 The applicant needs to make the mentioned changes to the site plan and submit copies to the Planning and Public Works staff no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday on August 15, 1996. Provided a timely revised submittal is made, the item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) When the meeting was called to order, it was apparent that no more than 8 commissioners would be present. The Planning Commission Bylaws require a minimum of 6 affirmative votes for an item to be approved. Chairman Woods announced to the audience that any applicant on the agenda who wishes to have their item heard by the full Commission can request a deferral at this time. Mr. Harold Smith requested a deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Harold Smith introduced his new engineer B. T. Armstrong. The engineer presented the project to the Subdivision Committee. David Scherer indicated that Public Works was requesting a minimum 900 foot radius for the horizontal curve on Crystal Valley Road. Mr. Smith stated that he objected to this requirement. Commissioner Putnam told Mr. Smith that he would need to take it up with the full Commission. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Mr. Harold Smith began his presentation by asking the Commission to waive the conditions of the previously approved preliminary plat. Chairman Putnam stopped Mr. Smith and explained that they were now discussing the rezoning item. Mr. Putnam asked Mr. Smith if he wanted the rezoning. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairman Putnam then asked the Commission for a motion. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: J (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6180 Motion to approve the requested PCD zoning for Lot 2 to accommodate Deans Coffee Company subject to staff conditions. Motion passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 61 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.• K FILE NO.• Z-6181 NAME• Hodges - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Woodland Drive (East end) OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas L. Hodges PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of 19 multisectional manufactured homes on 19 lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-21, 23-29, 52-54, 61-63, 98-99). The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is located at the easterly end of Woodland Drive. Woodland Drive runs east off of Sardis Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of Alexander Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is surrounded by single family residential uses and zoning. The property north, south and east of this site is vacant and wooded. There are a number of single family residences located to the west (along Woodland Drive) between this subdivision and Sardis Road. There is also a single family residence on what is shown as Lot 22 on the attached site plan. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The applicant proposes a single access point to each of the 19 lots. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181 The applicant will also provide at least one (1) off- street parking space for each of the 19 proposed manufactured homes. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments 5. Public Works Comments: If developer intends to clear all sites at one time, a grading plan with soil loss calculations is required prior to construction. 6. Utility Comments: Little Rock Fire Department - A fire hydrant is required within 800 feet of any of the proposed buildings. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of 19 multisectional manufactured homes on the 19 lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-21, 23-29, 52-54, 61-63, 98-99). The property is zoned R-2. The applicant is proposing a building envelope (buildable area) for each lot which will allow for a multisectional manufactured home. It appears that all of the building envelopes meet minimum ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks and no variances are required. There will be a single access point to each of the lots and the applicant will provide at least one (1) off- street parking space for each of the proposed dwellings. The majority of the land surrounding this subdivision is vacant and heavily wooded with approximately two dozen existing single family homes west of this subdivision along Woodland Drive. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these 19 manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. P% October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 2. Compliance with the Little Rock Fire Department Comments 3. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required 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. 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: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Tommy Hodges was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion pertaining to this general area and the type of manufactured home proposed. Staff informed Mr. Hodges that side yard setback variances would be required for Lots 54, 61, 63 and 98. Mr. Hodges responded that these lots would be revised to meet the required setbacks. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The applicant was present. There were several persons present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 agenda, as offered by Chairman Woods, due to only eight commissioners being present. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Tommy Hodges was present, representing the application. There were several persons present opposing the conditional use permit. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission. Mr. Hodges gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Hodges stated that he has been unable to sell the lots to the public or to builders for the past couple of years. He stated this is the reason he is pursuing the manufactured home aspect. Mr. Hodges stated that he would comply with the ordinance established minimum siting standards and the manufactured homes would blend into the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hodges also stated that he owns approximately 100 of the lots within this subdivision and he felt that this proposal would not adversely effect his lots or the lots owned by others in this subdivision. Susan Myers spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. She read a letter of opposition from her husband, David Myers. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Hodges about the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision. Mr. Hodges stated that the Bill of Assurance prohibits mobile homes but not manufactured homes. Susan Whitson spoke in opposition to the application. She stated concerns as to the materials that these proposed homes are made of and whether they would have garages or carports. She stated that manufactured homes would not 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181 retain the value of a stick -built home and would devalue the neighborhood. Mike Whitson also spoke in opposition to the application. He also stated concerns that the manufactured homes would lower the property values in the neighborhood. Roger Free also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Free stated that manufactured homes depreciate in value more than stick -built homes. He stated other property value concerns. Commissioner Adcock asked Roger Free if he had any evidence as to the depreciation rate of manufactured homes. Mr. Free stated that he did not. Commissioner Rahman asked why Planning Commission approval is needed for a manufactured home when it is going to be used as a single-family dwelling in single-family zoning. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission review insured that the ordinance requirements regarding manufactured homes were met. There was a brief discussion regarding the difference between a manufactured home and a multisectional manufactured home. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Hodges if he could assure the neighbors that the manufactured homes he would place on the sites would be of the same or greater quality than those shown in the pictures he passed out to the Commission. Mr. Hodges stated that they would be. He stated that the homes would have a value of at least $50,000 to $60,000. Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Hodges if a manufactured home is taxed as personal property or real estate. Mr. Hodges responded that they are taxed as real estate. Commissioner Lichty asked if the homes would be brought in on a flatbed truck or if the units would have built-in axles. Mr. Hodges stated that it could be done either way. It depended on the manufacturer. Commissioner Lichty asked the neighborhood representatives if there was anything in the Bill of Assurance which regulates the quality of a stick -built home. 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6181 The neighborhood representatives responded that there was not. There was a brief discussion concerning the quality of stick -built homes as compared to manufactured homes. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by staff. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 nays and 2 absent. 6 October 10, L996 ITEM NO.: L Z-1850-D Owner• Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home Applicant: Eunice Reed Location• 1201 Ringo Street Request: Rezone from R-4 to 0-3 (amended to 0-1) Purpose: Construct parking garage for funeral home on adjacent property Size: .38± acres Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family residences; zoned R-4 South - Vacant lot; zoned R-4 East - Funeral home and overflow parking lot; zoned 0-3 West - Vacant residential structure, single family and two family residences; zoned R-4 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Dedicate right-of-way according to the Master Street Plan including a 20 foot radial area at intersection. Driveways are limited by Ordinance. A conference with staff prior to construction is recommended. Drainage and excavation ordinances apply. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT A CATA bus route extends down Chester Street, passing in front of the funeral home on the east side of this block. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request is for office. Because of the location and the proposed use, staff feels that a plan amendment is not necessary if the applicant agrees to a more restrictive office reclassification for the property. This approach would October 10, L996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L Z-1850-D (Cont. require site plan review and ensure that the development is compatible with the neighborhood and maintain the area's residential character. The use change is not a significant departure from the plan's concept and does not justify an amendment for 3 lots. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .38± acre tract, consisting of the western half of 4 lots, from "R-4" two-family residence to "0-3" General Office. The property is currently vacant. The applicant, Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home, proposes to build a garage structure on the property for the parking of funeral home vehicles, including hearses and limousines. The property is located at the edge of a small single family and two family residential pocket bounded by Chester Street, 14th Street, Dr. Martin Luther Ring, Jr. Drive and I-630. Care must be given to protecting the integrity of this residential area. The requested 0-3 reclassification may be too broad of a zoning designation to allow its intrusion into the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the purpose behind the rezoning is to allow fok the construction of a single building to house vehicles associated with the adjacent funeral home. Funeral homes are permitted in the 0-3 district and the garage would be treated as an ancillary use. In and of itself such a use would probably not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. However, staff would prefer to see a more restrictive zoning classification proposed. The "0-1" Quiet Office district allows funeral homes as a conditional use. This approach would result in a more residentially compatible zoning designation and would allow review of the building's design and possible restrictions on use of the property. This O-1/CUP approach would assure that the development is compatible with the neighborhood and would maintain the area's residential integrity. The Central City District Land Use Plan now recommends single family for the site and MX for the adjacent property occupied by the funeral home. An 0-1 reclassification for such a small site (the western half of 4 lots) would not justify a plan amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested 0-3 rezoning. Staff recommends that the application be amended to an 0-1 rezoning E October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • L Z-1850-D (Cont.) request and a conditional use permit to allow this garage as an ancillary use to the funeral home. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 12, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to staffs recommendation that the item be amended to an 0-1 rezoning and a conditional use permit. Staff recommended that the item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 Commission meeting which would allow review by the Subdivision Committee. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the October 10, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the application, as amended to 0-1. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: L1 FILE NO.: Z-1850-E NAME: LOCATION• Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home - Conditional Use Permit 1200 Chester Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home/Joe D. White, Jr. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 40 foot by 145 foot garage building on the property at the southeast corner of West 12th and Ringo Streets. The property is currently zoned R-4 with a request to rezone to 0-1. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located at the southeast corner of West 12th and Ringo Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The property immediately south of this site is zoned R- 4 and is vacant. The properties across Ringo Street to the west and across west 12th to the north are also zoned R-4 and contain single family and two-family structures. The property immediately east of this site is the existing Ruffin and Jarrett Funeral Home site. Philander Smith College is located further east across Chester Street. The proposed use of this property should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a new driveway from West 12th Street or an existing asphalt driveway from Ringo Street. The proposed use of the property will not require any additional parking. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1850-E 4. Screening and Buffers: The areas set aside for landscaping and buffers exceed ordinance requirements. If the proposed parking lot will accommodate more than 15 vehicles, 6 percent of its interior must be landscaped. Curb and gutter or another approved border is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. Public Works Comments: Dedicate right-of-way according to the Master Street Plan including a 20 foot radial area at intersection. Driveways are limited by Ordinance. A conference with staff prior to construction is recommended. Drainage and excavation ordinances apply. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 40 foot by 145 foot parking garage on this property at the southeast corner of West 12th and Ringo Streets. There is also a request to rezone the property from R-4 to 0-1. The building will be utilized for the parking of funeral vehicles. The proposed single -story 40 foot by 145 foot garage will be metal fabricated with an inner liner wall for security. The building will be beige in color with a decorative molding. The roof of the building will be white in color. The proposed building will have ten 8 foot by 8 foot doors for vehicle access. There will be one standard entry door for safety purposes. The vehicle doors will open to a new concrete parking lot and all of the vehicle doors will face the rear of the existing Ruffin and Jarrett development to the east. The new concrete parking lot will be used for parking funeral vehicles and public parking. The applicant has stated that there will be an abundance of shrubs and/or trees planted which will line the Ringo Street and West 12th Street sides of the building. The proposed use of this property as a parking garage (a use accessory to the existing funeral home immediately 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-1850-E east) should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 3. All of the vehicle entry doors must be on the east side of the building, facing the existing funeral home. 4. The proposed building is to be used for the parking/storage of funeral home vehicles only. There is to be no vehicle maintenance or repair work done on the site. 5. An abundance of shrubs and/or trees must be planted along the Ringo Street and West 12th Street sides of the proposed building as offered by the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: The applicant was not present. description of the proposal. (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Staff gave a brief Staff pointed out that all of the garage doors would face inward and there would be no doors on the Ringo Street or West 12th Street sides of the building. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that if any of the proposed parking lot is used for public parking, interior landscaping may be required. The Committee accepted the application and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. KI October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: L1 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 4 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: M NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment REQUEST: Remove proposed collector LOCATION: Northeast of Baseline Road and Colonel Carl Miller Road SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: The owners of approximately 200 acres northeast of Baseline and Colonel Carl Miller Roads have asked to have a collector removed from the Master Street Plan. Without this collector there will be no internal circulation in the area. That is the arterials will be forced to carry more of the vehicular trips - resulting in more congestion than with the internal circulation. The owners are also asking for higher density zoning for much of the area - R-2 to MF-6. The owners have indicated the type of development - apartments around a golf course. However there is not Planned Development so there is no guarantee. Staff cannot support the plan change without assurance that the development will occur as indicated. With a Planned Development or site plan review the removal may be appropriate. The design plan shown to staff will work without the collector and staff can support the Plan changes as proposed conditioned on the development pattern. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral of the Master Street Plan issue meeting (the scheduled public hearing for permit for the proposed golf course). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: to the October 10, 1996 the conditional use (SEPTEMBER 12, 1996) The item was placed on Consent Agenda for deferral to October 10, 1996. By unanimous vote of those present the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Staff reviewed the item and recommended approval of amending Master Street Plan to remove the proposed collector. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend removing the collector from the Master Street Plan. The vote 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. the was October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: N NAME: Parks Master Plan Amendment LOCATION: Northwest of Chenal Parkway and Markham REQUEST: Remove Community Park - Rock Creek Park Expansion SOURCE: Property Owner STAFF REPORT: On August 15 the Planning Commission discussed Land Use Plan Amendment to change an area from Park/Open Space to Commercial. At that meeting the Commission unanimously voted to change the Plan. However, the Parks Plan still shows the site for a proposed Community Park. The Parks Department is completing a report on the Rock Creek Park proposal. This report will be provided to the Commission at or before the September 26 meeting. If the Commission wishes to allow the commercial use of the property as indicated by your action on August 15, an amendment removing the park site is necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (To be given at the hearing on September 26.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 27, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development informed the Commission that the Parks Department and property owner regulations wished this item be deferred to October 10 when a plat and Planned Development Proposal for the area will be considered. By unanimous vote 10-0 the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: N (Cont.) A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. F" October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-992-D NAME: PINNACLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE III LOCATION: On south side of Pinnacle Valley Road about 3/4 mile south of railroad tracts. DEVELOPER• Carl Boshears Route 2 Box 1162AA Perryville, AR 72126 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick McGetrick Engineering 11225 Huron Ln., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 5.75 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 20 FT. NEW STREET: 1,015 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: #1, River Mountain 1) Length cul-de-sac street 2) Rural street standards on Pinnacle Valley Road with no curb, gutter or sidewalks This parcel of land was not previously developed when the area across the creek was subdivided. This proposal will create 20 single family lots situated adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create 20 new single family residential lots with access from a proposed cul-de-sac which will connect with Pinnacle Valley Road. The developer is requesting a variance for a cul-de-sac which will exceed the maximum allowable length portion of the ordinance. A variance is also requested to allow that portion of Pinnacle Valley Road to be developed as a rural street. This would eliminate the required installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. The proposed cul-de-sac would include curb, gutter and sidewalks on one side of the street. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-992-D B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The vacant land is wooded and generally lower than the existing grade of Pinnacle Valley Road. A 48 inch raw waterline and a 20 inch sanitary sewer line run through the property. A portion of the property is site is within the floodplain. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None to date. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Based flood elevations are to be shown on all lots that have floodplain on them. A sketch grading and drainage per section 29-186 will be required. A grading permit for special flood hazard area and a development permit for special flood hazard area will be required prior to construction. Submit base flood elevation in sketch grading plan prior to construction. Submit base flood elevation in sketch grading plan prior to Planning Commission approval. Addresses for this site will be assigned at final platting. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds limits according to the minor residential street standards which limits a cul-de-sac lengthy to 750 feet. Staff can support a cul-de-sac length variance because there are only 20 residential lots shown accepting access from this street. We recommend construction of a sidewalk and the safety standards relative to sight distance for a residential street. Pinnacle Valley Road is a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. Right- of-way dedication to 45 feet from centerline will be required. Construction of frontage improvements to 30 feet from centerline with the sidewalk are required by ordinance. Staff could support a deferral of improvements beyond collector streets standards. Collector street width 36 foot pavement would facilitate left turn movement on this narrow roadway. Recommend that the plat be redrawn to eliminate the residential frontage of lots 6, 7, 8 and 1 on this minor arterial. Storm water detention ordinances apply. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Isom Fees will be required. Arkla: No comment Southwestern Bell: OK K October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-D Water: There may be restrictions on the amount of cut and/or fill allowed in the waterline easement. A water main extension will be required. AP&L : No comment Fire Department: No comment County Plannincr: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The following are unresolved items with the preliminary plat submittal. • Show plat boundaries. • Include all floodway as a tract. • Eliminate Lots 1, 6, 7 and 8 which are shown with direct access from Pinnacle valley Road. G. ANALYSIS• A number of outstanding issues addressed at the Subdivision Committee meeting remain unresolved at the time of the preparation of this staff report. Staff is prepared to proceed with the preliminary map contingent on the revisions listed above. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the preliminary plat provided that the developer make changes to the plat outlined in paragraph F. Approval is subject to the conditions listed in paragraphs D, E, F of this staff report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, project engineer summarized the major aspects of the proposed preliminary plat. Larry Jones stated that Lots 1, 6, 7 and 8 could not take direct access from Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. McGetrick indicated he would take a look at some other form of access for those lots. David Scherer expressed concern about who will be responsible for future improvements to portions of Pinnacle Valley Road that are not controlled by this subdivider. Larry Jones asked Mr. McGetrick to define the boundaries of the preliminary plat. This item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-992-D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Mr. Jones presented the staff report. He stated that proposed Lots 1,6, 7 and 8 had been redesigned to not take access from Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Harry Willems requested a 25 foot driveway easement across Lot 1 to provide access to a house he owns adjacent to this subdivision. Mr. Pat McGetrick agreed to provide that easement. Mr. McGetrick also stated his request for a waiver of curb, gutter and sidewalks on Pinnacle Valley Road. There was a long discussion between David Scherer and Chairman Putnam concerning road improvements. The applicant wants only to provide rural standard improvements on Pinnacle Valley Road. Several commissioners asked questions concerning the difference between a waiver or deferral. The Chairman asked for a motion on the preliminary plat only. Motion to approve the preliminary plat as submitted. Motion passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. Motion to defer curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements until the last three lots are final platted. Motion passed with 6 ayes, 3 nays and 2 absent. 4 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-992-E NAME: PINNACLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE IV -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of Pinnacle Valley Road and immediately south of the railroad tracts. DEVELOPER: Andrew Schuaf 5700 Countryside Little Rock, AR AREA: 3.92 ACRES ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick Drive McGetrick Engineering 72212 11225 Huron Lane, Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 NUMBER OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Multifamily Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: #1, River Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: DEFERRAL of this item to the November 21, 1996 meeting of the Planning Commission. The project engineer failed to provide the necessary project related information to staff as outlined in the Subdivision Committee Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick represented the applicant. The proposal is for 22 triplex and 1 duplex residential lots. Larry Jones indicated that the width of the proposed internal roadway was not adequate. There were a number of questions from Public Works concerning improvements along Pinnacle Valley Road and the internal roadway. The Committee determined that there was not enough information available on the companion PRD (Z-6198) and outstanding questions of this preliminary plat. Mr. McGetrick was told to submit a revised preliminary plat to planning staff no later than 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 25, 1996 on the item will be deferred to the November 21,1996 Planning Commission meeting. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-992-E PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1110 NAME: BERTA -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: 13702 Kanis Road DEVELOPER• Robert and Jewell Hawkins 13702 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER• 011en Dee Wilson 2523 North Willow N. Little Rock, AR 72114 t AREA: 2.75 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Deferral of road improvements along Kanis Rd. BACKGROUND• The applicants wish to create a lot for their daughter and her family to construct a single family on Lot 1. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To split a 2.75 acre parcel with an existing single family home into two lots. Access to the proposed Lot 1 will be via a 20 foot easement from Asbury Road across Lot 2. The existing home on Lot 2 will continue to use a concrete driveway from Asbury Road as access. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land is flat and heavily wooded. There are no existing curb, gutter or sidewalk improvements on Asbury or Kanis Roads. Surrounding land uses consist of large lot (one acre plus) single family homes. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None to date. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1110 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Dedication of right-of-ways as indicated on the plat appeared to me to Master Street Plan standards. Prefer the plat of lots (1) and (2) be rotated 90 degrees, so that lot (1) would take access from Asbury Road verses the minor arterial Kanis Road. Master Street Plan calls for Asbury Road to be built to a residential street standard 27 feet wide with a sidewalk. Kanis Road is a minor arterial to be constructed 60 feet wide with the sidewalk on both frontages. The corner radius would be improved to 25 feet and handicap accessible ramps would be constructed at the intersection for both sidewalks. Driveways for residents should be constructed and should be built in a way that would not interfere with future public right-of-way improvements specifically the grade of the driveways and a proper transition for sidewalk grades. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Arkla: No comment Southwestern Bell: OK Water: The water meter for each lot should be adjacent to the lot served. Location of the existing meter needs to be determined. A pro rata front footage charge of $13/foot applies for connections off Asbury Road. AP&L : No comment Fire Department: No comment County Planning: No comment Planning Division: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN • All outstanding planning issues have been resolved. G. ANALYSIS The applicant has worked with Planning and Public Works staffs to resolve staff concerns. A 20 foot easement has been added to provide access to Lot 1 for Asbury Road. At staff request Lot 1 will be denied access from Kanis Road. The applicant is requesting a deferral of road improvements along Kanis Road. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1110 H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in paragraphs D and E of this staff report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Hawkins was present to discuss the preliminary plat. David Scherer outlined the future improvements planned for Kanis Road and the reasoning to deny a driveway access from Kanis Road by Lot 1. There was a great deal of discussion in respect to the existing conditions of the roadways and the projected future traffic volumes. Mr. Hawkins stated that he would consider providing an access easement from Asbury Road for Lot 1. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) This item was included in the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1111 NAME: GREY ROCK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: West of the intersection of West Markham Street and Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Moses/Nosari Real Estate 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 19.51 ACRES ZONING• R-2 NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 19, Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: ENGINEER• MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72221 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Commercial Following the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant requested a deferral. Staff recommends that the item be referred to the Subdivision meeting of October 31, 1996 and Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1996. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Staff indicated that they were not prepared to forward this item to the Planning Commission. Planning and Public Works staffs indicated that they had questions concerning proposed access to the site from Chenal Parkway and improvements along Gamble Road. Pat McGetrick, project engineer indicated that he would discuss with this clients whether a deferral was necessary in order to answer staff concerns. The Committee stated that the project applicant needed to notify Planning staff by Wednesday, September 25, 1996 if they wanted a deferral of this preliminary plat. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1111 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicants request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1092-B NAME: THE HILLS SUBDIVISION PHASE II -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of the intersection of Otter Creek Parkway and Wimbledon Loop Road DEVELOPER: Otter Creek Land Company, Inc. #2 Otter Creek Court Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 25.20 ACRES ZONING: R-2 NUMBER OF LOTS: 65 PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 FT. NEW STREET: 2,850 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential Sidewalks as shown on plat. The project engineer has requested that the preliminary plat be withdrawn. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the applicant's request to withdraw the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, project engineer indicated that the applicant wishes to withdraw the preliminary plat. There was no discussion on the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The project engineer requested that the preliminary plat be withdrawn. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for projects to be withdrawn. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for withdrawn items. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1108 NAME: BERNAY COURT -- PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT LOCATION: The extension of Bernay Drive adjacent to St. Charles Addition ENGINEER• Claude and Carla Spainhour Development Consultants, Inc. #7 Perdido Drive 10809 Executive Center Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 3.02 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 146 PLANNING DISTRICT: #18, Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Allow a pipestem on Lot 6. BACKGROUND• This proposal will create 6 single family residential lots from a portion of the existing Neimeyer Grove Addition. There is a companion right-of-way abandonment (G-23-254) item on this agenda. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create 6 new infill lots in an area surrounded by existing development. The lots will be served by extending Bernay Drive and creating a cul-de-sac. Lot 6 is proposed as a pipestem parcel. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Parkway village retirement community is situated south of the site. Single Family residential homes border the property to the west, north and east. The site is currently vacant with dense underbrush. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None to date. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1108 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS A grading permit is required prior to construction. Topographic information at 5 foot contours is required. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this subdivision. Drainage as required for a Preliminary Plat it should be included in this Preliminary/final Plat. Eliminate island interior of cul-de-sac. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Lot 3. Arkla: No comment Southwestern Bell: OK Water: A water main extension will be required. They will owe $2,371.40 for previous Water Works participation. AP&L: No comment. Fire hydrants per code. Counter Planning: No comment Planning Division: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN Planning staff has no outstanding issues in respect to the proposed combined preliminary/final plat. G. ANALYSIS The applicant has worked with staff to address the concerns of the Subdivision Committee. This proposal is contingent on approval of the companion right-of-way abandonment being approved (G-23-254). H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the Bernay Court combined preliminary/final plat subject to conditions listed in paragraphs D, E and G of this staff report. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1108 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Barry Williams represented the applicants who were also present. David Scherer stated his concern about the island proposed within the cul-de-sac extension of Bernay Drive. Mr. Scherer was concerned with flow of traffic and potential parking problems around the island. Larry Jones suggested that the plat and Bill of Assurances be revised with the elimination of the cul-de-sac island. The applicant indicated that be would make the requested changes. This item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) This item was included in the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention and 2 absent. 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 2A FILE NO.: Z-6198 NAME: PINNACLE VALLEY SUBDIVISION PHASE IV -- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATION: On the south side of Pinnacle Valley Road and immediately south of the railroad tracts DEVELOPER: Andrew Schuaf 5700 Countryside Little Rock, AR AREA: 3.92 ACRES ZONING• R-2 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick Drive McGetrick Engineering 72212 11225 Huron Ln., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 NUMBER OF UNITS: 65 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: Multifamily Residential #1, River Mountain STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None DEFERRAL of this item to the November 21, 1996 meeting of the Planning Commission. The project engineer failed to provide the necessary project related information to staff as outlined in the Subdivision Committee Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick introduced the project which consist of 65 units on 23 lots. Larry Jones indicated that the proposed density was 16 dwelling units per acre and was therefore inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. Staff has also received no information concerning the architectural style, building heights and number of bedrooms per unit. The Committee determined that there was not enough information on this proposed PRD to forward this item to the full Commission. Mr. McGetrick was told to submit a revised plan to Planning Staff no later than 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 25, 1996 on the item will be deferred to the November 21, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6198 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. E October 10, 195o ITEM NO.: 4A FILE NO.: Z-6199 NAME: GREY ROCK LONG -FORM PCD (Z-6199) LOCATION: West of the intersection of West Markham and Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Moses/Nosari Real Estate 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 19.5 ACRES ZONING: R-2 NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 19, Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: ENGINEER• MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72221 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Commercial Following the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant requested a deferral. Staff recommends that the item be referred to the Subdivision meeting of October 31, 1996 and Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1996. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Larry Jones indicated that the proposed PCD be limited to only Lot 1 of the companion preliminary plat (5-1111). Mr. Ramsey Ball represented the applicants indicated that they could not define the exact type of commercial uses desired on the property except for Lot 1. David Scherer stated that Public Works had concerns in regards to left turns from the site on two Chenal Parkway. Planning Staff showed the applicant several inconsistencies in the Target Lot 1 parking and circulation design with the approved conditional use permit for Home Depot. Pat McGetrick stated that his clients were considering a deferral in order to work with staff on the outstanding site plan issues. The Committee stated that the project applicant needed to notify Planning Staff by Wednesday, September 25, 1996 if they wanted a deferral of this item. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6199 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 2 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6189 NAME: OAKS BROTHERS SHORT -FORM PD-I LOCATION: 16815 Lawson Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Mike Oaks Oaks Brothers, Inc. #2 East Skyline Drive Greenbrier, AR 72058 AREA: 1.48 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Contractors Storage PLANNING DISTRICT: 17, Crystal Valley CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant has requested a deferral unit the November 21, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) The applicant has requested a deferral due to a death in his family. The item was not discussed. The Committee recommended this matter be deferred until the November 21, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 1996. This item was included as part of the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda for deferral. The motion by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-4853-C NAME: EAGLE HILL COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Lindsey Management Company Tim Daters 300 Front Street WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOC. Fayetteville, AR 72702 401 South Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 239 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: MF-6 (Multifamily District 6 du/ac) PLANNING DISTRICT: 17, Crystal Valley CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Defer improvements to Colonel Miller Road until future phases. This property was rezoned by the Planning Commission in July 1996 to Multifamily District with a maximum density of six units per acre. In the end of August 1996, the applicant filed a conditional use permit (Z-4853-B) to permit an 18 hole golf course and a Site Plan Review (Z-4853-C) for apartments. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The site totals 239 acres generally located north of Baseline Road and east of Colonel Miller Road. An 18 hole golf course (Z-4853-B), 32 two-story apartment buildings totaling 384 units, 889 open parking spaces, golf club house, and other recreation areas are planned. The 384 residential units breakdown as 128 one bedroom and 256 two bedroom apartments. The detailed site plan illustrates the apartment building locations along the golf course and the internal roadway network. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Otter Creek Community is situated to the south of the proposed Eagle Hill Country Club. The primary access to The Club will be opposite Wimbleton Drive. The land use on the west side of Colonel Miller Road includes an auto salvage yard, mini -storage, church and single family. The land use to the north including adjacent Crystal Valley Road is a October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-C mixture of vacant and single family residential. The Henderson United Methodist Church is situated at the southeast corner of the proposed Eagle Hill Golf Club. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: One letter to date not taking a position on the proposal. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS Considerable topographic, grading, drainage plan, special flood hazard permit, and other appropriate information will be required prior to construction. Including ADPC&E approval and United States Army Corp of Engineers, Little Rock District approval will be required prior to start of work. The submitted plan does not properly show the floodway boundaries, the floodplain boundaries and the required drainage improvements. It should show those required improvements and should be discussed prior to approval of this site plan. Construction of the lakes, fairways, tee boxes, and greens within the floodway area as represented will not be approved, as shown, until extensive engineering study work has been done for this large drainage basin map floodway. Plans submitted, are therefore, subject to change, based upon being able to certify that this construction can be done and approved by the various determining agencies relative to the floodplain and floodway. Baseline Road is a principal arterial that requires dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and initial construction requires dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and initial construction requires widening to 30 feet from centerline with curb and gutter and sidewalk. Colonel Miller Road is a minor arterial with 45 foot of right-of-way from centerline and 30 feet of construction from centerline. A right turn lane on Baseline at Colonel Miller is required with additional right-of-way. There is extensive drainage on West Baseline Road and Colonel Miller and a 1 in 50 year storm for Baseline will be required including improvements of any cost drains. 100 percent of cost drains will be required with the construction improvements for West Baseline and Colonel Miller Road. The first entry drive off of Colonel Miller Road does appear to have a crossing than is less than 75 feet from the right-of-way of Colonel Road in conflict with City ordinance. Staff recommends that internal sidewalks be connected to the public sidewalk to be constructed on Baseline Road and Colonel Miller Road. The sidewalk requirements for Baseline Road will need meet ADA standards. Staff recommends a 5 foot sidewalk at the property line versus a sidewalk at the back of curb. PA October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-C Stormwater detention provisions of the drainage ordinances do apply to this development. A phasing line should be shown and any roads or drives that cross the floodway. All structures will have to be design for the 100 year storm event. Prior to Planning Commission, plans indicating the floodway limits and floodplain contours will be required. Minimum floor elevations for all structures and all exteriors components of those structures shall be raised to one foot above all BFE elevations. They should be indicated on the plan. There is a large bold line shown on the plan that indicates that the ownership on the apartments units will be separated from the ownership of the golf facility. Therefore the access drive to this multiple lot facility shown to be a 36 foot drive is to be constructed. Recommend a turn -around device prior to accessing the parking for the club house and the 36 foot drive should have sidewalks on both sides required by the subdivision ordinances. The Plan shows a private drive that connects Baseline Road to the drive that enters and connects to the club house area. This makes a private drive that connects two public streets in violation of City ordinance. The private street that accesses across the golf course lot and connects the two complexes should be built to commercial standards with sidewalks. Staff recommends the minimum width of all interior drives be 27 feet which is a minor commercial standard and include a sidewalk. The Traffic Engineer recommends several drive changes to be discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. 1992 Arkansas Highway Department daily traffic count numbers for Baseline Road is 3,200 vehicles per day. Colonel Miller Road extension to Crystal Valley shows a count at the junction of Crystal Valley Road and Lawson Road of 1,840 vehicles per day. Each unit from within this complex will add approximately 10 trips per day to these traffic numbers. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Capacity analysis is required. Arkla : No comment Southwestern Bell: OK Water: Pro rata footage charges of $15/foot on Baseline Road and $150/acre apply. AP&L : No comment Fire Department: Submit revised Site Plan for Fire Department review. County Planning: See attachment 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-C F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN Landscape The proposed street and land use buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements when averaged out. However, a portion of the street buffer along Colonel Miller Road drops to an approximate width of 18 feet. The full width requirement in this area is 40 feet. Also, portions of the proposed parking lots intrude considerably into the 50 foot full street buffer requirement along Baseline Road and the 50 foot eastern land use buffer adjacent to Henderson United Methodist Church. Areas set aside for landscaping appear to meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen this site from the residential properties to the north and east. Credit can be given for existing dense vegetation to remain. If dumpsters are to be used, they must be shown on the site plan and screened to a height of eight feet on three sides. This screen must be either a wood fence or wall. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Issues• The following are unresolved items on the site plan review submittal. • Sign dimensions and design • Lighting Plan • How will areas designated for future development be maintained? Will they be landscaped? • Will the volleyball, basketball or tennis courts be lighted? These items are conditions as agreed to by the developer September 25, 1996. • The drive connection between buildings 1 and 4 to Colonel Miller would be gated and closed. This access would be available for use by emergency vehicles. • Defer improvements to Colonel Miller Road until that portion of the project adjacent to that road is developed. The required street improvements would be constructed at the Baseline Road/Colonel Miller intersection. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-C G. ANALYSIS The applicant and project engineer have largely answered staff questions concerning Phase 1 of the development. Phase 1 as addressed in this Site Plan Review application (Z-4853-C) will consist of 32 two-story apartment buildings. Each building will include 8-two bedroom and 4-one bedroom units. The totals are 256-two bedroom and 128-one bedroom units for 384 units overall. There will be a minimum of 889 open apartment parking spaces exclusive of the club house area. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the site plan subject to the project description and conditions outlined in Sections D, E, F and G of this report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Tim Daters, project engineer, presented the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Both items were discussed by the Committee as part of the overall development. The applicants clearly defined the various elements of the Phase 1 portion of Eagle Hill Country Club. The Subdivision Committee determined that the item should be forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Tim Daters presented the project and explained the phasing of road improvements for Colonel Miller and Baseline Roads. The applicant proposes a left turn lane built to rural standards at the clubhouse entrance from Colonel Miller Road. All improvements on Baseline Road from Wimbleton Drive east will be constructed. The balance of road improvements on Baseline to Colonel Miller and all improvements on Colonel Miller except the rural standard left turn lane will be deferred for a maximum of three years. These roadway improvements could be done sooner than three years if one of the two following conditions occur. If during that period a 24 hour traffic count on the impacted roads shows volume of 5,000 + ADT or if phase 2 is developed. If one or both of these conditions exist than the applicant has the choice of putting in the deferred road improvements or closing the project access to Colonel Miller Road. The improvements will be installed regardless after three years. Mr. Lawson stated that staff recommends approval of the stated deferral request. 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-C A motion to approve the site plan review passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. A motion to approve the waiver of road improvements as stated in this minute record for up to three years. Motion passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 21 COUNT PULASKI CITIES ALEXANDER PulasId County PUBLIC WORKS 501 W. MARKHAM 911 ADDRESSING PROGRAM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SUITE A 501-340-8270 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-340-8260 September 9, 1996 Mr. Monte Moore Mr. Larry J. Jones City of Little Rock Dept. of Neighborhoods & Planning 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 CAMMACK VILLAGE RE: Eagle Hill Country Club JACKSONVILLE Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit LITTLE ROCK Z-4853-C & Z-4853-B M.AUMELLE Dear Sirs: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SHERNOOD Regarding the recently received site plans for the Eagle Hill County Club facilities being proposed at the intersection of West Baseline Road and Col. Miller ;vRIGHrsvILLE Roads. This property does in fact contain floodway and it appears that the intent of the developer to construct numerous detention ponds which some are located within the existing floodway. Prior to approval by the City of Little Rock of this development, it will be necessary for the excavation, drainage design plans to be submitted to Betty Smith, FEMA Administrator, Pulaski County Planning UNINCORPORATED Department, for review and approval as well as obtaining the necessary permits for AREA this type of work. If it is determined that a variance must be allowed for any of the work, a request will have to filed for approval with the Pulaski County 600 SQUARE MILES Planning Board. If the City of Little Rock or the developer should have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact, Betty Smith, Pulaski County Planning Administrator, at 340-8263. MILITARY Sincerely, BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON Maribeth Crawley Project Coordinator JCc: Robert Lane, Director, Pulaski County Public Works October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8A FILE NO.: Z-4853-B NAME: Eagle Hill Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 13,300 Block of Baseline Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Lindsey Management/Tim Daters PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a private golf course and related facilities on this MF-6 zoned, 131 acre site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed golf course site is located at the northeast corner of Baseline Road and Colonel Miller Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The properties east of this site are zoned single family residential with the Henderson United Methodist Church located on Baseline Road. The properties south of this site are zoned single family and multifamily residential with the Otter Creek Community located further south. There exists a mixture of uses across Colonel Miller Road to the west. These uses include a church, mini -warehouse, an auto salvage yard, and single family residential. North of this site there is a mixture of pasture land and single family residential along Crystal Valley Road. The proposed golf course and related facilities should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 36 foot wide drive from Baseline Road. The uses within the clubhouse and maintenance buildings require a total of 69 parking spaces. A total of 199 parking spaces are provided on the proposed site plan. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B 4. Screening and Buffers: All review comments are based on the entire site as one large tract of property. The proposed street and land use buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements when averaged out. However, a portion of the street buffer along Colonel Miller Road drops to an approximate width of 18 feet. The full width requirement in this area is 40 feet. Also, portions of the proposed parking lots intrude considerably into the 50 foot full street buffer requirement along Baseline Road and the 50 foot eastern land use buffer adjacent to Henderson United Methodist Church. Areas set aside for landscaping appear to meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen this site from the residential properties to the north and east. Credit can be given for existing dense vegetation to remain. If dumpsters are to be used, they must be shown on the site plan and screened to a height of eight feet on three sides. This screen must be either a wood fence or wall. Curb or gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. Public Works Comments: (Public Works comments for this item and Z-4853-C Site Plan Review) Considerable topographic, grading, drainage plan, special flood hazard permit, and other appropriate information will be required prior to construction. Including ADPC&E approval and United States Army Corp of Engineers, Little Rock District approval will be required prior to start of work. The submitted plan does not properly show the floodway boundaries, the floodplain boundaries and the required drainage improvements. It should show those required improvements and should be discussed prior to approval of this site plan. Construction of the lakes, fairways, tee boxes, and greens within the floodway area as represented will not be approved, as shown, until extensive engineering study work has been done for this large drainage basin map floodway. Plans 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B submitted, are therefore, subject to change, based upon being able to certify that this construction can be done and approved by the various determining agencies relative to the floodplain and floodway. Baseline Road is a principal arterial that requires dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and initial construction requires widening to 30 feet from centerline with curb and gutter and sidewalk. Colonel Miller Road is a minor arterial with 45 foot of right- of-way from centerline and 30 feet of construction from centerline. A right turn lane on Baseline at Colonel Miller is required with additional right-of-way. There is extensive drainage on West Baseline Road and Colonel Miller, analysis of that drainage for a 1 in 25 year storm for Colonel Miller and a 1 in 50 year storm for Baseline will be required including improvements of any cost drains. 100 percent of cost drains will be required with the construction improvements for West Baseline and Colonel Miller Road. The first entry drive off of Colonel Miller Road does appear to have a crossing that is less than 75 feet from the right-of-way of Colonel Road in conflict with have crossing that is less than 75 feet from the right- of-way of Colonel Miller Road in conflict with City ordinance. Staff recommends that internal sidewalks be connected to the public sidewalk to be constructed on Baseline Road and Colonel Miller Road. The sidewalk requirements for Baseline Road will need to meet ADA standards. Staff recommends a 5 foot sidewalk at the property line versus a sidewalk at the back of curb. Stormwater detention provisions of the drainage ordinances do apply to this development. A phasing line should be shown and any roads or drives that cross the floodway. All structures will have to be design for the 100 year storm event. Prior to Planning Commission, plans indicating the floodway limits and floodplain contours will be required. Minimum floor elevations for all structures and all exteriors components of those structures shall be raised to one foot above all BFE elevations. They should be indicated on the plan. There is a large bold line shown on the plan that indicates that the ownership on the apartments units will be separated from the ownership of the golf facility. Construct the access drive to this multiple lot facility as a 36 foot drive. Recommend a turn- around device prior to accessing the parking for the 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B club house and the 36 foot drive should have sidewalks on both sides required by the subdivision ordinances. The Plan shows a private drive that connects Baseline Road to the drive that enters and connects to the club house area. This makes a private drive that connects two public streets in violation of City ordinance. The private street that accesses across the golf course lot and connects the two complexes should be built to commercial standards with sidewalks. Staff recommends the minimum width of all interior drives be 27 feet which is a minor commercial standard and include a sidewalk. The Traffic Engineer recommends several drive changes to be discussed at the Subdivision Committee Meeting. 1992 Arkansas Highway Department daily traffic count numbers for Baseline Road is 3,200 vehicles per day. Colonel Miller Road extension to Crystal Valley shows a count at the junction of Crystal Valley Road and Lawson Road of 1,840 vehicles per day. Each unit from within this complex will add approximately 10 trips per day to these traffic numbers. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: L.R. Rock Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Capacity Analysis required. L.R. Water Works: A pro rata front footage charges of $15/foot on Baseline Road and $150/acre apply. On site fire protection will be required. L.R. Fire Department: Must provide proper turn- arounds for fire apparatus and proper fire hydrant spacing. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a private golf course and related facilities on this MF-6 zoned, 131 acre site at the 13,300 block of Baseline Road. The golf course will be a full 18-hole course measuring some 6,700 yards in length. The applicant plans to have numerous lakes within the golf course and will take advantage of existing trees as much as possible and plant hundreds more. The course will also include a driving range and putting green. The entire golf course will be fenced with a wrought iron style steel fence. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B In addition to the golf course, club facilities will include a clubhouse, junior olympic-sized swimming pool and an office/maintenance building. The club house will be two stories in height with a pitched roof. The building will be of brick and masonry construction. The club house will contain approximately 9,000 square feet and the following uses: Proshop - 1,500 square feet, locker rooms - 2,000 square feet, office - 1,500 square feet, exercise/meeting area - 2,000 square feet, and living quarters for manager - 2,000 square feet. The office/maintenance building will also be two stories with a pitched roof and be of masonry and brick construction. This building will contain approximately 10,000 square feet and the following uses: cart storage - 3,000 square feet, equipment area - 2,000 square feet, office - 3,000 square feet, and living quarters for greens keeper - 2,000 square feet. All proposed structures on this site exceed the minimum building setbacks as required by ordinance. The uses within the clubhouse and maintenance buildings require a total of 69 parking spaces. A total of 199 parking spaces are provided on the proposed site plan. This number of parking spaces should be more than adequate to serve the golf course development. Hours of operation for the golf course will be from 8:00 a.m. until dark. The clubhouse will typically be open from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Hours of operation may vary for special events. Any lighting on this site (the parking lot/club house area) will be low level and directional. The golf course and driving range will not be lighted. The proposed use of this site as a golf course with related facilities should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Tim Daters was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the conditional use permit along with the site plan review application. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the committee, which included the suggestion of a turn- around in front of the clubhouse for drop-offs. The applicant submitted a letter to staff with information on hours of operation, signage, site lighting and a list of the uses within the clubhouse and maintenance building. The applicant stated that there would be a fence around the entire golf course which would separate it from the apartments. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Tim Daters was present, representing the application. There was one person present wishing to speak on the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal, noting that the maintenance building and the swimming pool would switch places on the site plan. Staff gave a recommendation of approval. Susan Hardin addressed the Commission regarding the floodplain issues involved with the golf course. Mrs. Hardin asked if there would continue to be a running stream in the area. Mrs. Hardin also asked if herbicides and fertilizers would be used on the golf course and how that would effect the water quality. Tim Daters stated that a development permit would be obtained from the City of Little Rock for all work within the floodplain/floodway. Mr. Daters also stated that a permit would be obtained from the Corps of Engineers for work within the creek area. Mr. Daters stated that a stormwater detention permit would also be obtained. Mr. Daters stated that the lakes would be excavated in the valley areas and no dams would be constructed on the creek. Mr. Daters stated that the construction of the ponds and lakes should improve the water quality within the creek. Mr. Daters stated that the fertilizers and chemicals used on 6 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4853-B the golf course are regulated by the state and federal governments. Mr. Daters stated that the well water in the area would not be effected. There was a brief discussion concerning the city water limits in the general area. There was a motion to approve the conditional use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 6 October 10, lv96 ITEM NO.• 9 FILE NO.: Z-5239-C NAME: LOCATION• Our House - Conditional Use Permit 302 E. Roosevelt Road OWNER/APPLICANT: U.S. Department of Health and Human and U.S. General Services Administration/Our House by Joe Flaherty PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 20,000 square foot building which (in conjunction with five other existing buildings on this site) will be used as transitional and emergency housing and other related services as provided by Our House. The property is zoned R-4. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the filing fee. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site, which is the old V.A. Hospital site, is located on the north side of E. Roosevelt Road, just west of Interstate 30. 2. Compatibility with Neicrhborhood: The proposed site is within the old V.A. Hospital site, with the main hospital building located immediately west. The properties south of this site (across Roosevelt Road) include residential uses, a church and a service station. Another service station is located immediately east of this site, with Interstate 30 further east. The properties to the north(across East 24th Street) are predominantly single family and two- family residences. The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. October 10, i996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5239-C 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing an existing driveway from Roosevelt Road. The housing provided by Our House is unique in that less than ten percent of the people that are provided housing own a vehicle. The office space, trade school and day care uses within the existing buildings and the proposed new building will require 30 parking spaces. There is more than adequate paved parking on the site to meet this requirement as well as to accommodate any parking needed for the emergency and transitional housing uses. 4. Screening and Buffers: An upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance equal to the building expansion percentage increased will be required. 5. Public Works Comments: A sketch grading and drainage plan and Topographic information will be required. If the disturbed site is over 5 acres, an ADPC&E permit will be required. 1992 AHTD traffic count for Roosevelt Road was 14,170 vehicles in the vicinity of this location. Stormwater detention ordinance applies. 6. Utility Comments: L.R. Wastewater: Sewer mains on this property are private. Utility does not have plans showing location or condition of any sewer main on this property. L.R. Water Works: Existing lines that provide service will have to be relocated and/or abandoned. They have frontage on an 8" main in E. 24th Street. Domestic and fire service including on site hydrants as recommended by the Fire Department should be off 24th Street. L.R. Fire Department: spacing. 7. Staff Analysis: Contact for proper fire hydrant The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 20,000 square foot building which (in conjunction with five other existing buildings on the site) will be utilized as transitional 2 October 10, 19v6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5239-C and emergency housing and other related services as provided by Our House. The property is zoned R-4. Based on the fact that Our House is philanthropic/charitable organization, the applicant has requested a waiver of the $250.00 filing fee. The proposed new 20,000 square foot structure will be one-story on the west side and two -stories on the east side. This building will include four small offices and emergency and transitional housing (and related uses) for approximately 100 persons. Buildings 4 and 5 (as shown on the attached site plan) will be removed from the site prior to construction of the new building. The proposed 20,000 square foot building meets and exceeds all area setbacks as required by ordinance. The other existing structures on this site include buildings 3, 6, 9, 13 and 14 as labeled on the attached site plan. Building 3 contains transitional housing for families (35 persons maximum). Building 6 has office space downstairs and three living units on the second floor. Building 9 houses a small engine/small appliance repair training shop, an IBM computer jobs training school, two adult computer literacy training programs, a human development classroom and a state -licensed day care center for a maximum of 30 children. Building 13 and 14 are used for grounds maintenance equipment parking and for storage. As noted earlier, the housing provided by Our House is unique in that less than 10 percent of the people that are provided housing own a vehicle. The office space, trade school and day care uses within the existing buildings and the proposed new building require 30 parking spaces. There is more than adequate paved parking as the site to meet this requirement as well as to accommodate any parking needed for the emergency and transitional housing uses. The shelter (emergency and transitional housing) will be a 24 hour operation. The trade school/day care will typically have daytime classes with an occasional night class. The offices will be operated during daytime hours. The continuing use of this property for emergency and transitional housing along with the other services provided by Our House, in addition to the construction of the new building, should have no adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5239-C 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and of the waiver of the filing fee subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility Comments SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Joe Flaherty was present, representing the application. Mr. Flaherty gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Flaherty explained the current uses on the property and the proposed new structure. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that an upgrade in landscaping would be required. Mr. Flaherty stated that he agreed to the landscaping upgrade. Mr. Flaherty stated that the hours of operation will be as follows: 1. Shelter (emergency and transitional housing) - 24 hour operation 2. School and daycare - daytime classes with occasional night classes. 3. Offices - daytime hours After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Joe Flaherty was present, representing the application. Larry Jones, of the Planning Staff, explained to the Commission that he received a phone call from Director Wilson requesting that the item be deferred. Director Wilson stated that not enough of the neighbors had been notified of the proposal. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that Director Wyrick had also called and requested that the item be deferred. Director Wyrick stated that a meeting needed to be held with the neighbors regarding this proposal. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5239-C Joe Flaherty, of Our House, addressed the Commission regarding the deferral requests. Mr. Flaherty stated that there is a $2,300,000 grant application pending regarding this proposal. Mr. Flaherty stated that in order for Our House to obtain the grant to construct the new building on this site and close down the Main Street location, he had to have two things by November 1st. Mr. Flaherty stated that he had to have the deed to the property and zoning approval for the new building by November 1st or Our House would lose the grant, as this is a one time opportunity. There was a general discussion regarding this issue including the notification of the neighbors and neighborhoods, the Our House use and the deferral of this item. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, suggested that this item be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 1996. Mr. Lawson stated that this would still perhaps allow Mr. Flaherty time to respond to the grantor by November 1st. After further discussion, the Commission voted to defer this item to the rezoning agenda of October 24, 1996 with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. 5 October 10, ij96 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-5902-A NAME: LOCATION• Fletcher - Conditional Use Permit 1809 Deuerling Road OWNER/APPLICANT: John and Ruth Fletcher PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 28 foot by 80 foot 1996 Model multisectional manufactured home and related structures on this R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the east side of Deuerling Road, approximately 900 feet north of Fourche Dam Pike. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is surrounded entirely by R-2 zoned property. The properties west of this site are made up of single family residences, with a single -wide manufactured home immediately west. The property immediately south is vacant with a church and single family residences located further south. The lot immediately east of this site contains -an AT&T wireless monopole site with Fourche Creek located further east. The property to the north contains several vacant commercial buildings. Compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards in the placement of this manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 20 foot access easement, which is also used to access the AT&T antenna site located on adjacent property. Adequate parking will be provided on the site to serve the single family residence. October 10, L,96 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902-A 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments 5. Public Works Comments: A minimum right-of-way required for public roads is 50 feet. All driveways are to be constructed to a concrete or asphalt standard. Access to the access easement that is used by AT&T Antenna site should be verified with the AT&T contractor. 6. Utility Comments: L.R. Wastewater: 12- force main located in general area of project. Location required prior to construction. Contact Little Rock Wastewater for details. L.R. Fire Department: Driveway needs to be at least 12 feet wide to handle the width of a fire apparatus. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 28 foot by 80 foot 1996 model multisectional manufactured home on this property at 1809 Deuerling Road. The property is zoned R-2. Along with the manufactured home, the applicant is proposing the placement of a swimming pool and construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot hobby shop/storage building on this site. All structures exceed the minimum setbacks as required by ordinance. The applicant is proposing to access this site by utilizing an existing 20 foot access easement, which was put on this site to access the AT&T monopole site on the lot immediately east. Staff has received a letter from Hunter Stuart, of AT&T Wireless Services, which states that AT&T Wireless Services has no objection to the use of the access easement to gain access to the residential property. Compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards in the placement of this manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 2 October 10, j96 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902-A 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 2. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 3. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required 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. 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: The applicant was not present. description of the proposal. (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Staff gave a brief Staff informed the Committee that a letter has been received from AT&T Wireless Services. The letter states that the applicant has the right to utilize the existing access drive on the property. There being no further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issue for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 4 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.• 11 FILE NO.: Z-6191 NAME• Evans Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION• 2524 Chester Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Charles S. Evans PROPOSAL• A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 30 foot by 35 foot accessory dwelling on this R-4 zoned property. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow an accessory dwelling larger than 700 square feet in area. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located at the northwest corner of Chester Street and west 26th Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This site is located in an area which is predominantly single family in nature. All adjacent property is zoned single family (R-3) and contains single family residential structures. There is also some two-family zoning (R-4) and structures further east of this site. The proposed accessory dwelling should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot driveway from Chester Street. Adequate parking will be provided on the site to serve both single family dwellings. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6191 5. Public Works Comments: No apparent Public Works issues. Chester is a 36 foot street and 26th Street is a 23 foot chipseal without a sidewalk. 6. utility Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 30 foot by 35 foot accessory dwelling on this property at 2524 Chester Street, which is zoned R-4. The property currently contains a two-story single family residential structure, which will be occupied by the land owner, Charles Evans. The proposed accessory dwelling will be located in the rear yard (west side) of the principal dwelling. The proposed 30 foot by 35 foot accessory building will be composed of two -stories. The first floor will be utilized as a garage. The accessory dwelling will be located on the second floor of the structure. The proposed accessory building meets and exceeds all setbacks as required by ordinance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow this accessory dwelling with 1,050 square feet. The maximum permitted floor area for an accessory dwelling shall not exceed 700 square feet according to ordinance standards. The proposed accessory dwelling should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and of the requested variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Charles Evans was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Staff informed the Committee that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 1,050 square foot accessory 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6191 dwelling, the maximum permitted floor area being 700 square feet. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. f October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.• 12 FILE NO.• Z-6192 NAME• Parker - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 4101 Weldon Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Dave Parker/Evelyn Parker PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 28 foot by 56 foot 1996 model multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the east side of Weldon Street, approximately five blocks south of West 36th Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is located in an area predominately single family in nature. The general area contains numerous single family residences. However, the properties immediately north, south, east and west (across Weldon Street) are vacant and heavily wooded. Compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards in the placement of this manufactured home should not have an advance effect on the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a driveway from Weldon Street. Adequate parking will be provided to serve the single family residence. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments October 10, 1y96 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6192 5. Public Works Comments: No apparent Public Works issues. Weldon Street is a 12 foot chipseal street with open ditches. 6. Utility Comments: L.R. Water Works: A water main extension is required to serve this property. An acreage charge of $50 (minimum charge) is applicable in addition to normal charges. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 28 foot by 56 foot 1996 model multisectional manufactured home on this property at 4101 Weldon Street, which is zoned R-2. The applicant is also proposing a 12 foot by 16 foot front porch, a 16 foot by 16 foot rear deck, and a 20 foot by 20 foot carport with this application. All of these structures will be attached to the manufactured home. The north (side) setback meets the minimum ordinance requirement of 7.5 feet, and all other setbacks exceed the minimum ordinance requirements. Compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards in the placement of this manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Utility Comment 2. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required 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. E October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6192 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: The applicant was not present. description of the proposal. (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Staff gave a brief Staff informed the Committee that the proposed multisectional manufactured home meets and exceeds the ordinance setback requirements. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Evelyn Parker was present, representing the application. There was one person present opposing the application. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Evelyn Parker addressed the Commission in support of the conditional use permit. Mrs. Parker stated that the improvements that she will make to this lot will benefit the entire area. George Brown, of the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Brown stated that he felt that manufactured homes would not be appropriate for this area. Mrs. Parker explained to the Commission that she would be extending water and other utilities to this lot which will benefit the other surrounding lots. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.• 13 FILE NO.• Z-6196 NAME• Alltel (Gooch Drive) - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION• 4420 Gooch Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Joe D. Miller/ Alltel by Carrick B. Inabnett PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned property. A height variance is also requested to allow the monopole tower at a height greater than 75 feet. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the north side of (end of) Gooch Drive, south of Taylor Loop Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is in an area which is made up largely of single family residences on larger lots. The single family zoned properties immediately west and south of this site are vacant and wooded. The property immediately north is also vacant and zoned single family. The properties east of this site (along Gooch Drive) contain single family residences. The new Pennwick Subdivision is located further east. Given the fact that much of the property in this general area is vacant and many of the nearby residences are separated from this site by wooded areas, the proposed monopole tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot drive from Gooch Drive. October 10, 1>96 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6196 Parking will be provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: A six foot high wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen the proposed compound area from adjacent residential property. 5. Public Works Comments: Gooch Drive is not a public road. 6. utility Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned property. The proposed monopole tower will be located on a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area behind (west of) the residence at 4420 Gooch Drive. The lease area will be enclosed by a six foot high wood screening fence. The proposed equipment building will be located at the base (east side) of the monopole tower within the fenced compound. The proposed structures meet and exceed the setbacks as required by ordinance. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the monopole tower. A height of 150 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. The applicant has also informed staff that co -location on this tower will be possible. The proposed tower will accommodate one and possibly two additional future users. Given the fact that much of the property in this general area is vacant and many of the nearby residences are separated from this site by wooded areas, the proposed 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6196 monopole tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and of the requested height variance subject to the applicant complying with the screening and buffers comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Alissa Coffield and other Alltel representatives were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not Gooch Drive is a public road. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that he believes Gooch Drive to be a private drive. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that a six foot high wood fence would be required around the proposed compound area. The Alltel representatives confirmed that the proposed tower would accommodate one and possibly two additional future users. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Alissa Coffield, Tim Rounsaville, and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition to this item. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Carrick Inabnett, of Alltel, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Inabnett stated that the pole would not be lighted, and gave a brief description of the area. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rounsaville presented a handout to the Commission which included information regarding the Alltel towers in this general area. Mr. Rounsaville discussed with the Commission the technical reasons which support the need for this particular tower. 3 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6196 Commissioner Daniel asked if this tower would cover the Chenal Parkway area. Mr. Rounsaville stated that this proposed tower would be to cover the general area of Cantrell Road, and not the Chenal Parkway area. There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of this tower and whether other towers would be needed in this area in the future. Alissa Coffield, of Alltel, presented photographs to the Commission. Mrs. Coffield discussed the photographs with the Commission. The photographs were computer generated and depicted the area as if the tower were on the site. Commissioner Berry asked if alternative sites were considered. Mr. Inabnett stated that the church at Taylor Loop Road and Carter Lane declined to allow Alltel to put a tower on their property. Mr. Rounsaville again discussed with the Commission the technical issues involved with the proposed tower and why this specific site is needed. Michael Ptak represented the neighbors in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Ptak gave several reasons for the opposition. The main reason for opposition, as stated by Mr. Ptak, is that the area around the proposed tower location is residential in nature. Mr. Ptak stated that the proposed tower would not be compatible and have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Ptak also stated that the neighbors are concerned with the health and safety issues regarding cellular towers. Randy Riva spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Riva stated that the proposed tower would ruin the recreational enjoyment of his property. Gary Oldrettle also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Oldrettle stated that the proposed tower would take away from the rural nature of the area. Bill Gunn also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Gunn stated that he would have a clear view of the tower from his house. Stuart Perry also spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Perry stated that he felt that the proposed tower would not be compatible with the area. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6196 Commissioner Hawn stated that the Zoning Ordinance prohibited uses or structures with commercial characteristics in single family residential zoning. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 8 nays and 2 absent. 5 October 10, 1990 ITEM NO.• 14 FILE NO.: Z-5991-B NAME• LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL• STAFF ANALYSIS• Foy Bed and Breakfast House Special Use Permit 710 Wellington Village Road Winrock/Jonathan Foy and Mark Buerkle A special use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a new colonial style bed and breakfast house on the R-2 zoned, 1.5 acre tract located at 710 Wellington Village Road. The applicants propose to construct a colonial style, residential structure on the R-2 zoned, 1.5 acre tract located at 710 Wellington Village Road. They are requesting a special use permit to allow for the use of the structure as a bed and breakfast house. This new facility will consist of the owner - occupied primary family residence and not more than 5 guest rooms. The two-story, residential style structure will contain approximately 4,000 squar6 feet. The Zoning Ordinance defines bed and breakfast house as "an owner occupied single family residence which contains not more than five (5) guest rooms which for a fee may be occupied by a guest for no longer than fourteen (14) days." Section 36-54(e) of the Code establishes the site and location criteria for bed and breakfast houses which are as follows: a. The occupancy fee may include a continental breakfast (coffee, juice and pastry) to be served to paying guests with no full meals. b. The owner must provide one (1) paved off-street parking space per guest room and one (1) additional for the residence use. C. Allowable signage is that permitted by the single-family residential standard. d. No receptions, private parties or tours for a fee are allowed. The applicants have stated that the proposed bed and breakfast house will conform to the standards of Section 36-54(e). October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5991-B The required on -site parking will be provided; minimum of 6 paved spaces. Signage will be limited to that permitted by the single family residential standard. That standard allows the following: 1. One attached nameplate per occupancy; not to exceed one square foot in area. 2. One freestanding ground -mounted sign, not to exceed one square foot in area and a maximum height of six feet. 3. No commercial advertising is allowed. Only signs denoting the name and address of occupants are allowed. The property is located at the southern fringe of a newly developing residential subdivision in west Little Rock. Properties to the south, between this site and Chenal Parkway, are zoned 0-3, C-1, C-2 and MF-18. Properties to the north are zoned R-2. A new church is to be constructed on the property directly across the street from the site. Staff believes the proposed bed and breakfast house is a reasonable use for the property. what amounts basically to a large single family home with 5 guest rooms on a 1.5 acre tract is compatible with other uses in the area. It will serve as a transition from the single family properties to the north to the nonresidential zoning south of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit subject to compliance with the site and location criteria for bed and breakfast houses outlined in Section 36-54(e) of the Code of Ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, with conditions. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to compliance with the site and location criteria in Section 36- 54(e). The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 2 October 10, 1990 ITEM NO.• 15 FILE NO.: G-23-253 Name• Jackson Street Exclusive Right -of - Way Abandonment Location: Jackson Street at Country Club Blvd. - 5000 Country Club Blvd. Owner/Applicant: Elizabeth Riggs Brandon Request• To abandon the west 5 feet of Jackson Street, adjacent to Lot 14, Block 13, Newton's Addition to the City of Little Rock (5000 Country Club Blvd.) STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way Dedicate and do not abandon that portion outside of a 20 foot radial at intersection. There are no other apparent Public Works issues. It does not indicate a need to be retained as a drainage easement. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of- way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets Dedicate 20 foot radial at intersection as per Public Works. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The proposed area of abandonment is approximately 3-4 feet above the existing grade of Jackson Street and is currently landscaped and being used as a side yard for the residential structure. There is also a rock retaining wall with an iron fence on top along the west curbline of Jackson Street. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be incorporated into the adjacent residential lot. This landscaped area will continue to be used as a side yard area for the existing residence. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect All surrounding land uses are exclusively single family residential. October 10, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-253 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the Heights Neighborhood Association have been notified.of the public hearing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities L.R. Wastewater: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. L.R. Water Works: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. Southwestern Bell: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. AP&L: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. ARKLA: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to Elizabeth Riggs Brandon. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this right-of-way will not effect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive right-of-way abandonment subject to the°applicant dedicating the 20 foot radial at the intersection (as per Public works). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) The applicant was not present. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed right-of-way abandonment. David Scherer, of Public works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. Staff informed the Committee that the applicant has amended the application as per the Public Works Comments. The proposed abandonment will be five feet rather than seven feet. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-253 There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Brandon). 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6A FILE NO.: G-23-254 Name: Neimeyer Grove Exclusive Right -of - Way Abandonments Location: South of Bernay Drive and Lots 671 and 672, St. Charles Addition to the City of Little Rock Owner/Applicant: Robert M. Brown, Applicant Request: To abandon all of the unnamed street and alley rights -of -way adjacent to Lots 1-9, Block 59 and Lots 1-18, Block 60, Neimeyer Grove Addition to the City of Little Rock. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way There is no public need for these rights -of -way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for these rights -of - way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent street. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The proposed area of abandonment is undeveloped; vacant and heavily wooded. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be incorporated into the adjacent residential properties. The Neimeyer Grove property will be replatted into a new single family residential subdivision. Any new easements required will be dedicated with the replat of the property. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Single-family residences in the St. Charles Addition are located to the north, east and west of this proposed area of abandonment. The Parkway Village Retirement Community is located immediately south. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-254 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the St. Charles Neighborhood Association have been notified of the public hearing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities L.R. Wastewater: No objections to abandonment. New easements required with re -plat of the property. L.R. Water Works: No objections to abandonment. A water main extension is required with replat of the property. Southwestern Bell: No objections to abandonment. No easements required. AP&L: No objections to abandonment. New easements required with re -plat of the property. ARKLA: No objections to abandonment. Any easements on relocation of facilities will be required with replat of the property. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to the adjacent property owners as shown on the attached site plan. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning these rights -of -way will not effect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive right-of-way abandonment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Barry Williams, Robert Brown and Tim and Carla Spainhour were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the right-of-way abandonment along with a description of the proposed replat of the property. Staff stated that the proposal is for exclusive abandonment, and any easements required by any of the utilities would be included in the replat of the property. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 2 October 10, 1yy6 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6A (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-254 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 3 October 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 16 NAME: Park System Master Plan Amendment - Relocation of Community Park LOCATION: North of Baseline Road, west of Stagecoach Road REQUEST: Remove proposed park site and replace it with a new site. SOURCE: Rezoning Request - Z-4853-A STAFF REPORT: The City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the applications related to the proposed Eagle Hill Golf Community. This application encompasses a proposed forty acre community park that is identified on the 1983 Parks Systems Master Plan. Consequently, as noted in Ordinance No. 14,517, the City of Little Rock has responsibility to decide whether to acquire the forty acres or waive and amend it from the Parks System Master Plan (PSMP). A community park is located, sized and designed to accommodate each anticipated use and its service area. It is located near the center of a commercial area and serves a population of 10,000 - 50,000. Its service radius is one to two miles. Typical uses are playgrounds, basketball, baseball, tennis, picnicking, restrooms, free play and an indoor recreation center. The proposed community park is located in the proximity of steep slopes to the north, the county line to the west, and the Fourche Creek floodplain to the south and east. Its location within these parameters is key to effectively serving the residents that reside and will reside here. Additionally, the location of this park on an arterial street will symbolically communicate the civic opportunities and serve as a landmark within the city. There are two recreational opportunities located to the south that have minor impacts on this proposed community park. A private property association's park in the Otter Creek subdivision, which is limited to those who reside within its subdivision. The other is public recreational opportunity located south of Otter Creek subdivision. Phase I of this park is planned to be complete in mid 1997. The developments in these two sites will not duplicate recreational opportunities due to exclusivity for the private park and poor access to the service area for the public park. It is recognized that the proposed project includes small recreational area which will allow residences of Little Rock to October 10, 1y:06 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (cont. apply for membership within a thirty to sixty day period after its development. This would enable those who apply the same recreational opportunities that would be possible within a community park. However, as this area of Little Rock builds out there will be at least 10,000 additional residents to serve in the future which will not have access to this recreational development. Therefore, it is Park's recommendation that a provision for a community park be retained in the Parks System Master Plan for this area. However, it does not necessarily have to be indicated where it is in the 1983 plan. An alternative location is located near the future intersection of West Loop and Crystal Valley Road. Attached is a graphic which depicts this recommended location. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends the new site be added at the same time the current subject community park is removed from the PMSP. This will ensure that adequate recreational opportunities are available for the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Staff presented the item, relocating a proposed park site, and recommended approval of the amending the Master Parks Plan. There were several questions and staff responded to them. After some additional discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the proposed plan amendment. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. Fa 0 cc U W W� �- oN Z o") W U Z_ Z Z J a ■EMEANNEMME l mod"039 moo 100DR1100111 ®oan.vuv ►.un e000sucauum� oovv�,00vo.�vv �OdklE�CldOl7�10d 0000 o�oo���� ee�lo�eooe�ae� MEMBEERM man munumnumanan NOMENNMwINOWNN UNEUMenno�ioo COMBINE am PanamaNion MOMENNEW �©e®�ee Ai�ov �'il�ee�llle�l\e�i Mann s a o OnrinR UN101111101 111111111101 ©r1ae1 �000iieo�ei:e® Q gee erne • • • • loll a38105351850 e �eo a October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Date �f Chairman Secretary