Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
pc_03 14 1996sub
I. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MARCH 14, 1996 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten in number. Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 1995 meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Ron Woods, Chairperson Suzanne McCarthy Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Doyle Daniel Pam Adcock Sissi Brandon Larry Lichty Herb Hawn Mizan Rahman One Open Position Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MARCH 14, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Bowman Road -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z-5756-B) B. Piedmont Office Park -- Short -Form PD-O (Z-6060) C. Dean's -- Short -Form PD-C (Z-4859-C) D. Trammell 5323 Baseline Rd. -- Short -Form PCD (Z-4855-B) E Ferguson -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6090) F. Riverfront Dr. -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-245) G. East side of Cooper Orbit Rd., north of Spring valley Manor, rezoning from R-2 to MF-18 (Z-6083) II. PRELIMINARY PLAT: 1. Whispering Pines Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-643-B) III. PLANNED_ DEVELOPMENTS: 2. Richards -- Short -Form PD-C (Z-2326-A) 3. Courtside Place -- Long -Form PD-R (Z-3454-A) 4. Copy Systems -- Short -Form PD-C (Z-4450-A) 5. Mears Mini -Warehouse -- Long -Form PD-C (Z-4731-A) 6. Harris -- Short -Form POD (Z-6098) 7. Bentley Acres -- Long -Form PD-R (Z-6099) Agenda, Page 2 IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 8. Valley Heights Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review (Z-2349-A) 9. Health Source, Corporate Hill Subdivision -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-3689-G) V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 10. Faith Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z-5269-A) 11. Smith -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5524-E) 12. Moffett -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6096) 13. Evans -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6097) VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLAT ABANDONMENTS: 14. Mabelvale Town Plat and Right -of -Way Abandonment (S-1063) 15. Mason St. and Hardin Rd. Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-246) 16. "Y" Street Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-247) 17. Alley (between W. 8th St. and W. 9th St.) Abandonment (G-23-248) March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-5756-B NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: John A. Rees Pat McGetrick REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9298 223-9900 AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; & C-1 Conditional Use for an eating place without drive-in service PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated. STAFF UPDATE: The Planning Commission considered the PCD request at the September 19, 1995 Commission hearing, and the vote to recommend approval of the PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. The applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors, and at the Board meeting of November 7, 1995, presented a proposal for a revised PCD site plan and a change in the proposed uses. The Board referred the amended proposal to the Commission for a re -hearing of the item, with the proposed changes to be discussed. The applicant proposed to the Board of Directors to: 1) eliminate the proposed restaurant use; 2) set the rear buffer width at 10 feet and terrace the rear retaining wall; 3) eliminate the drive -around behind the south building, but provide partial drive-arounds behind both buildings; 4) relocate the southern dumpster away from the rear/east property line; and, 5) dedicate the required right-o-way along Bowman Rd. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B The applicant has, however, indicated to staff that further modifications will be proposed; that the PCD site plan which was approved in 1994 will be presented for review, with the only change being in the size of the building area. (The approved PCD site plan has a 9,000 square foot, single -story building at the southern end of the property and a two-story building at the north end of the property which has 7,125 square feet on the lower level and 17,175 square feet on the upper level.) The Planning Staff can support the reported change, subject to a large portion of the lower level of the northern -most building being used for storage for the reported furniture store use. BACKGROUND: The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district, plus an additional use, a video rental store. Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature, will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted in the 20 foot wide buffer strip along the rear, east, property line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid screening of the site from the east. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear, east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth; 2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250 square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at 16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed to be a "sit-down" restaurant. A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of- way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right- of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for development. The site slopes generally downward from a high point at the south property line to a low point at the northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in grades of 63 feet. The site is presently zoned PCD. Land to the north and across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2 zoning, lies to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated. 2) The proposed partial access drive behind the northernmost building should be a through drive to provide emergency access. 3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to any building permit being approved. 4) The required stormwater detention analysis must be provided, and the effects on downstream systems must be evaluated. Provide for the 100-year discharge from the site through adjacent properties. 5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being 10 feet at any location. The first wall behind the properties to the east shall be located a 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the height of the wall. Water Works comments that on -site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the rear, east, property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that on -site fire hydrants may be needed. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet minimum Ordinance requirements. Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued: A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be evergreen shrubs which are 30" in height at planting, spaced every 3 feet. Curb and guttering or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the proposed grade elevation difference along the eastern side of the property, additional buffer width may be necessary. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis, based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B of building area. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, that one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for general business and retail sales, one space for each 300 square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor area is to be provided. The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and 17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet, representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a building coverage of 28.3%. Sec. 36-299 requires the building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 35% of the lot area. Other commercial districts do not have building coverage limits. In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was not specified by Public works, and is not a requirement of the approved PCD. E. ANALYSIS• The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the finished grade at one point behind the north building, and generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the landscaping buffer requirement and the Public Works civil engineering perspective, this proposed condition is unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and the shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced effect, is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows, or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property, excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal. The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of one of the buildings and over half the length of the other. Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated, and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east, face of the building is a significant change from the originally negotiated and subsequently approved concept for the development. This is unacceptable. 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the rear property line area; the proposed development places the dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service hours; no change in this provision has been made by the applicant. The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This approved concept has changed drastically, and is not acceptable. The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a "shopping center" (to use the applicants terminology); yet, the parking is deficient for even an office development, let along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires much more parking than is allotted. The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only increases to 29.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the originally approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district. (The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.) The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for the site. The proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The amended request does not meet the intent of the original compromise. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. 0 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public works comments; specifically, he reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present. Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns, as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109 spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site. This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development, the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, and are not mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking for patrons and employees. Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to delete the restaurant use from the current application. He reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public works staff, a discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear 7 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be constructed on the property line. He related that, as the developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking. Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from the Birchwood Neighborhood Association expressing the Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of the Commissioner's desk. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected. Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He related that the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He said that the Association also objects to the height of the retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to look at. He presented a petition from the Association in opposition to the application. Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear of the building; and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall, and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view. Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr., right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally, the Commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward" to make concessions so that the property would be a usable and developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8 E3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the retaining wall, Alamo residents will be looking up to a higher plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to those residents further away from the property. He pointed out that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd too much onto the site. He urged the Commission to retain the buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting property owners, and to deny the application. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and being so close to the rear property line, would produce an activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the route of the sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one available route would take the service main across abutting residential properties. Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the available sewer on Bowman Rd. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high screening wall to separate a residential development from the Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the wall would decrease the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately 25%. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site. Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the wall, the abutting residences would not see much if any of the vans; that, in fact, they would see only the top of the buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way. Staff pointed out that, when the original PCD was approved, Public works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD was approved without the additional right-of-way being required. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd. is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for utilities. Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of the right-of-way. Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would probably be amenable to such a franchise. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade; the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the property. Staff commented that, in the originally approved PCD, the dumpsters were to be located at the front of the property along Bowman Rd. Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive- arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position. ES1; March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5756-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated January 4, 1996, asking that the item be deferred until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing. Staff noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated February 21, 1996, in which the applicant asked that his request for review of the amended PCD be withdrawn. Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal, with prejudice, prohibiting the applicant from resubmit the same or virtually the same application for 12 months. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 11 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • B FILE NO.: Z-6060 NAME: PIEDMONT OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 0.1 mile east of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER• DR. GENE GIVES, ERIC HUTCHINSON, & DR. JOHN DANIELS 14710 Cantrell Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 868-4140 AREA: 3.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 ENGINEER: Frank Riggins THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 FT. NEW STREET• 0 Professional Offices VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. 2) Approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. 3) Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 4) Approval of a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a planned development for a four -lot subdivision of a 3.8313 acre site, to entail the construction of four professional office buildings, with associated parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscaping features, situated along the shore of a portion of a lake. Two of the lots have frontage on Cantrell Rd.; two will take their access by way of access easements across the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots. A cross -access easement is to be platted along the internal drives to link the parking areas associated with each of the buildings, and maintenance of the drive system is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6060 Each of the lots will be the site of a professional office building. Three of the buildings are to be single -story structures, each with approximately 2400 square feet. One building is to be a story -and -a -half structure, and will contain approximately 5,000 square feet. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and scale, with roofs being hipped and walls being brick finishes. A gazebo is proposed to be located on a peninsula along the lake shore. The internal pedestrian walkway system will link the various office buildings and parking lots, as well as the landscape structure and features. No connection to abutting properties of the internal walkway system is proposed, and no sidewalk is proposed to be provided along Cantrell Rd., the applicant noting that there are no sidewalks along Cantrell Rd. to which a sidewalk along the applicant's frontage would connect. A driveway for each of the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots is proposed. It is the intent of the applicant to "preserve as much of the natural setting of the site" and to "maintain as many of the trees as possible", and to "maintain the lake as a natural site amenity". Maintenance of the lake is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance, and means will be taken during construction to protect water quality. The applicant proposes to provide extensive landscaping around the buildings and to screen the parking areas. No fencing or dense evergreen screening is proposed along the south property line along the lake shore, since imposing the land use buffer would "deny the owners, their employees, and visitors to the site the enjoyment of the most valuable visual asset of the property." Stormwater detention is to be provided on site on a development -wide basis. Site lighting is to be by low-level decorative street lamp type fixtures on 12 to 15 foot tall posts. Street signage will be limited to two, low -lighted monument signs located at each access point on Cantrell Rd. Uses are anticipated to be dental offices; however, approval of all uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 Planning Commission approval is requested for a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Planning Commission approval is requested for a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is wooded, with a drive and home located along the west shoreline of the on -site lake. The topography ranges from the lake elevation of 384 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to approximately an elevation of 396 feet MSL along Cantrell Rd. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. The R-2 zoning district includes land to the east and south, although the land to the east is occupied by a non -conforming commercial use. Residential lots abut the site to the south, across the lake. Land to the west is zoned 0-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The property is on Ison Creek, beyond the Flood Insurance study. The Corps and ADPC&E should be provided with sketch plan information and be allowed to comment, as applicable. Flow information on the stream and lake should be available for review. A grading permit and base flood information with finished floor elevations is required prior to construction. Driveway grades shall conform to Ordinance requirements. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department must approve driveway locations and design. Stormwater dentition analysis is required. A 6 foot wide sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site is required. Water Works comments that on -site fire protection will be required. PRZ backflow prevention will be required if the buildings contain doctors' offices. In addition to the normal connection charges, a pro-rata frontage charge of $15 per foot applies. wastewater comments that sewer is available at the site. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6060 Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. I$_SUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Staff has been told that there is a deed restriction granted by the developer of the Piedmont area which limits uses of all property the developer sold to residential uses, and that the Piedmont property owners are prepared to enforce this deed restriction. The City, however, is not a party to such deed restrictions, and is not bound by them in zoning matters. The land owners are responsible for enforcing such deed restrictions by appropriate legal means. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act as an enforcement agent for the Piedmont property owners, or to base zoning decisions on such private agreements. The Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-231, requires that all lots front on a public street, unless the Planning Commission approves a private street in a private access easement. Two of the lots do not front on a public street; therefore, the applicant has asked for access to be provided by access easements and a private internal street system. The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on highways such as Cantrell Rd., shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage, and that sites shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage. The applicant has provided for a shared access to the lots, but has requested two access points for the 512.5 feet of lot frontage, with the drive access points being 300 feet apart. Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk be provided along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, noting that there are no sidewalks on abutting properties on the south side of Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-287 states that, where an office subdivision requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets, and that the design of service easements shall be built to public street design standards. The applicant has an internal pedestrian circulation system provided, and seeks a wavier from the requirement to provide sidewalks along the interior driveways. when office developments abut single-family zoned property, a land use buffer is required. Since the lake forms the buffer between the office development and the residences to the south, a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line is requested. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries be furnished. Any property within the floodway or floodplain should be noted. A preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections, should be included. b) the certification be shown which certifies that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years. Sec. 31-91 provides a suggested verbiage for the Certification of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy which includes this language. c) proposed PAGIS monuments be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates be executed. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, 1 parking space be provided for each 400 square feet of gross square feet of building size. There are three, 2400 square foot buildings, each requiring 6 parking spaces. There is one 5000 square foot building, requiring 13 spaces. At total of 31 parking spaces is required to be provided on the site; 55 spaces are provided. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that: a) Areas set aside for interior, building, and perimeter landscaping are in compliance with and exceed the Landscaping Ordinance requirements. 9 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 b) If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located on the site plan, and must be screened on three sides by an 8 foot high wood fence or wall. c) A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen the business activity from adjacent residential zoned property to the south, east, and west. d) The Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance requires a sprinkler system to water plants. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned Development is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone,, The request, then, is in conformance with the Plan. The plans and required documentation are substantially complete, with very minimal deficiencies remaining to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development. Staff recommends approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line abutting the lake. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the planned development request. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline issues with Mr. Riggins. Staff reported to Mr. Riggins the assertions by Piedmont residents that the office use of the 0 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 property is not permitted in their deeds, and cautioned Mr. Riggins to investigate this issue. It was noted by staff, however, that the City would not enforce any deed or Bill of Assurance restrictions. Mr. Riggins reported that all issues raised in the discussion outline would be addressed, and that amended drawings and information would be furnished to staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however, that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on Friday, October 27th., two (2) working days prior to the hearing. A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Putnam, noting that several persons were in attendance at the meeting who were in opposition to the requested Planned Development zoning, asked if it might be appropriate to allow the objectors to present their viewpoint. Mr. Brent Peterson, a spokesperson for the group of Piedmont neighbors, said that the neighbors would not object to a deferral, and that the deferral would allow them to review the requested rezoning. A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5) working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. The deferral remained on the Consent presented by staff, and the deferral approval of the Consent Agenda with 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Agenda for deferral, as was approved with the the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and 7 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6060 was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that, immediately prior to the meeting, Mr. Frank Riggins, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Hal Kemp, the attorney for the Piedmont neighborhood, had reported to staff that the two parties would be able to come to an amicable agreement for development of the PD-O if another deferral could be approve. The Commission was asked by Mr. Kemp to approve an additional deferral, until the March 141 1996 Commission hearing, to permit the remaining issues to be resolved. The Commission approved placing the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions; then, with the approval of the Consent Agenda, the item was deferred, as requested by the Piedmont neighborhood with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the abutting property owners' attorney, Mr. Hal Kemp, had submitted an agreement reached between the applicants and his clients, in which the land use, building type, future development, location of buildings, site lighting, building height, and surface drainage design were subject to the abutting residents' approval, and that the conditions of the agreement were to be made a part of the PD-O requirements. Staff reported that Mr. Kemp indicated that the abutting residents supported the application, with the conditions which had been agreed to. Staff reported that staff had confirmed with Mr. Kemp and with Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, that the surface drainage from the parking lots and drives will be collected in the parking lots and carried by pipe to below the lake; that surface drainage from the lawn between the buildings and the lake will drain into the lake. Staff reported that there were no further issues which remain to be resolved, and recommended approval of the PD-O, of the access easement to provide drive access across Lot 3 for access to Lot 2, of the two access drives from Cantrell Rd., and of the waiver of the land use buffer along the lake front. Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Mr. Riggins presented the applicant's request, presenting a site plan which reflected the agreed -to conditions. Mr. Riggins confirmed staff's comments regarding the neighbors' and applicants' agreement, and indicated that, as staff had reported, the conditions of the agreement were to be made part of the application. 0 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- Commissioner Brandon wanted confirmation that there would be no damage or pollution of the lake, to which Mr. Riggins responded that this concern and been addressed in the agreement and would be dealt with through submission of the Erosion Control Plan presented to Public works. He added that the developers of the site would be responsible for the integrity of the lake and for any damage that was caused by them. Commissioner Lichty wanted an explanation on the effect of the cited agreement. Mr. Hal Kemp, the abutting property owners' attorney, explained that, although the development agreement is a private covenant between the affected residential property owners whom he represents and the office park developers, it is also being made part of the planned development application, and will be enforceable as any other conditions of the planned development. He added that the development agreement will be executed by the affected parties and filed with the County Recorder. It will, he said, be enforceable by the Piedmont residential property owners through the courts, if there is a breach of the terms of the agreement by the developers. Commissioner Adcock, addressing the Piedmont residential property owners who were in attendance at the Commission meeting, wanted confirmation from these residents that, indeed, Mr. Kemp was correctly representing their viewpoint, to which the residents assented. Commissioner Hawn wanted confirmation that there was no other opposition to the requested planned development from other Piedmont residents who were not a party to the agreement, to which Chairperson Woods responded that there had been no registration cards presented from anyone in opposition to the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the planned development and of the requested variances and waiver. The motion was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 9 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-4859-C NAME: DEAN'S -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Road, approximately 700 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• HAROLD SMITH 18201 Lawson Rd. Little Rock, AR 376-1799 AREA• 2.17 ACRES ZONING• R-2 ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 72210 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: General Offices; Warehousing PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide access to Lot 2. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD in order to divide a 2-acre tract into two approximately 1-acre lots. On the eastern -most lot, the applicant proposes to continue using the existing residential building which lies off S. Bowman Rd. for his "Dean's Coffee Service" business and to construct a 5,000 square foot building at the rear/west side of the lot for storage of goods used in his business. The western -most lot is proposed to be sold and developed with a 10,440 square foot office building. A 25 foot deep "undisturbed" buffer is proposed along the west property line, as is retention of many of the large hardwood trees on the site. Access to the rear/west lot is to be provided by way of a private drive in an access easement, and approval of the proposed private drive in the access easement is requested. Additionally, the drive is proposed to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking being provided off the drives, and a March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO • Z-4859-C variance is requested from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards and the restriction on head -in parking off the drive. Parking for 8 vehicles is proposed to be provided on Lot 1; parking for 27 vehicles is proposed for Lot 2. Additional right-of-way for S. Bowman Rd. is proposed to be dedicated, and payment to the City of the cost of constructing one-half of the required improvements to S. Bowman Rd. is to be made. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Office Development, with access to Lot 2 to be provided by a private drive in an access easement. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards, to permit the private drive in the access easement to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a residential structure immediately off S. Bowman Rd. which is used for the offices the Dean's Coffee Service business. Otherwise, the site is undeveloped. The area to the rear, however, has been cleared in preparation for construction. The property rises in elevation from 97 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) along S. Bowman Rd. to 117 feet at the west property line, an average grade of 3%. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 being the zoning of land to the south and west, as well along the northeast one-half of the site and across S. Bowman Rd. to the east. It is noted, though, that the ice/roller skating rink in directly across the street, and is a non -conforming use in the R-2 zoning district. Along the northwest half of the property is a PCD zone. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial development, the access should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking should not be such that the backing movement would be into the entrance drive. This drive can be 27 feet in width and have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. Sidewalks on both sides of the drive are required. Right-of-way along Bowman Rd. is required to be 45 feet from the existing centerline. One-half street improvements will be required along Bowman Rd. Little Rock water works comments that a water main extension and private fire hydrant will be required to serve Lot 2. Little Rock wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extensions, with an easement, is required to serve the west/rear lot. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the west, north, east, and part of the south property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department commented that all drives should be a minimum of 20 feet in width at all points. The Fire Department noted that fire hydrants are not shown on the site plan, but must be placed inn compliance with the Ordinance standards. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multifamily". The proposed use for the site is 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO • Z-4859-C "Office". Due to recent changes in the Land Use Plan in areas to the east and southeast, the proposed "Office" use of the property is in conformance with the developing land use of the area. Designating the area as "Transition Zone" ("TZ") would permit multifamily, residential, or office uses in the area, and staff recommends a change in the Land Use Plan for this site and the land to the south to "Transition Zone" ( "TZ1a) . Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a development abuts a public street, the developer is to provide the minimum of one-half the required Master Street Plan improvements. Sidewalks are required along the boundary street associated with an office development. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Bowman Rd., and is prepared to pay "in -lieu" funds with the City for Bowman Rd. improvements. Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements is to be indicated on the plat and the improvements are to be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. The applicant has requested such a variance in order for the private drive to be constructed to driveway standards, that no turn -around device be required, and that the parking spaces may back onto the drives. Parking requirements for office uses is one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet of building size, then, for space over 10,000 square feet (up to 20,000 square feet), the parking requirement is 95% of the basic requirement. Parking requirements for warehouse uses are one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, plus five spaces. The eastern -most new building is a 4,400 square feet building to be used for storage. Seven spaces are required by the regulations to be provided for this use; four are provided. The existing building, which is shown to remain, is an office or general business use. The parking for this building would range from three to four spaces; four are provided. With the rear 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C building being 10,440 square foot office use, 26 parking spaces are required. The total parking provided on the western -most building is 27 spaces; The location and plan for any signage must be specified and shown. The Plans Review Specialist notes that: Portions of the northern and southern site perimeters do not provide for the 6 foot wide landscape strips required by the Landscape Ordinance. Also, a section of the southern drive projects over the 7 foot wide land use buffer which is required (6 foot minimum with transfer). Curb and gutter, or other approved border, is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the front two-thirds of the northern site perimeter and along the entire southern and eastern sides of the property. Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) furnish the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) furnish information on the lot sizes; and, 3) provide information on any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) minimum building front yard setback lines; 2) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the tract; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 4) the date of the survey; 5) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all abutting subdivisions, and the names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision; 6) an adequate physical description of all monuments, to include the type of material and size of the monuments; and, 7) the zoning classifications of all abutting areas. Any proposed phasing of the development is to be indicated. Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. 61 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO • Z-4859-C E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat submission has only minor deficiencies which can be submitted by the engineer for staff approval following Planning Commission approval of the plat. The rear lot does not have the required frontage on a public street, and a private access easement and private drive are requested to provide needed access. With the four acre site and two lots, the requirements that a private drive for non- residential uses not serve in excess of 5 acres is met. The POD site plan showing a driveway standard access drive, with no turn -around device within the access easement and with head -in parking off the drive is not in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant, has, however, requested a variance from these requirements. The parking which is provided, as far as the number of spaces is conerned, meets the Ordinance requirements. The Fire Department has noted that all drives must be at least 20 feet in width. The applicant has, in attempting to retain many of the large hardwood trees, proposed 12 foot wide, one-way drives through the trees around the rear building. Consultation with the Fire Marshall needs to be had in order to determine what will be required for needed access by the Fire Department to three sides of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD, and approval of the access easement to provide the required access to Lot 2. Staff recommends denial of the driveway, without a turn- around device, with head -in parking off the drive, and without a sidewalk along both sides of the drive. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Harold Smith, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the requested POD, and presented the submitted preliminary plat and POD site plan. The various comments contained in the discussion outline were reviewed with Mr. Smith, Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed with the applicant and his C March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4859-C engineer the requirements for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Master Street Plan. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the deficiencies would be addressed, but that a variance from the requirement to construct the interior drive to City street standards would be pursued. Mr. Smith complained that the regulations were too harsh, and made a small development financially impractical to implement. Mr. Smith and Mr. McGetrick indicated that further meetings with staff and with Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the project architect, would be needed in order to determine how to address the various comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 30, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant, dated January 3, 1996, asking that the item be deferred until the March 14, 1996 Commission hearing. Staff noted that the requested deferral was the second deferral. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that a note had been received from the applicant, dated February 22, 1996, asking that the request for approval of a PD-C be withdrawn. Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal, without prejudice. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 7 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO • Z-4855-B NAME: TRAMMELL 5323 BASELINE RD. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Baseline Rd., approximately 0.25 mile west of Stanton Rd., at 5323 Baseline Rd. DEVELOPER: Allen W. Trammell TRAMMELL & CO. 7009 Geyer Springs Rd. Little Rock, AR 72209 568-5652 AREA• 0.71 ACRES ENGINEER• Troy D. Laha ENGINEERS, INC. P. O. Box 190251 Little Rock, AR 72219-0251 565-7384 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-2 & R-2 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse and Office PLANNING DISTRICT: Geyer Springs West (15) CENSUS TRACT: 41.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The item was on the January 30, 1996 Planning Commission agenda as a rezoning request. The proposal, at that time, was for a rezoning of the C-3 and R-2 site to C-4. Staff recommended denial of the C-4 rezoning, but there was agreement among Commissioners and staff that a deferral would be appropriate to permit the applicant to amend his request to seek approval of a planned development in lieu of the C-4 rezoning. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a planned development of a 0.71 acre tract to include construction of a mini -warehouse facility and the conversion of the existing residential structure on the tract to an office use. The applicant proposes to construct approximately 10,000 square feet of mini -warehouse buildings, with a total of 68 rental units. The existing residential structure is proposed to be "totally remodeled" to bring it into conformance with applicable codes and to provide the amenities needed to make it attractive office space for general and professional offices. The mini - warehouse facility is proposed to be accessible only during specified hours, typically until 9:00 at night, and not on a 24- March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4855-B hour per day basis. A security fence is to be installed at the perimeter of the mini -warehouse area, and a security gate will be provided to control access. No on -site manager or dwelling is proposed initially, but use of the existing dwelling for these purposes may be instituted at a later date. Site lighting is to be located and designed to limit -bleed-over- onto abutting properties, and will provide security lighting on the site. Construction of the facility is proposed to be accomplished in phases, as financing permits. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site currently has a 1,086 square foot residential structure located approximately 34 feet off the Baseline Rd. right-of-way. The remainder of the tract is vacant. The existing zoning of the tract includes C-3 property (the front/north'200 feet) and R-2 property (the rear/south 91.96 feet). The C-3 portion of the tact abuts I-2 property to the west and a PCD to the east. The rear R-2 property abuts R-2 property on the east, south and west. Across Baseline rd. to the north is C-4 and R-2 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works comments include: A site grading plan must be submitted and an excavation permit form the City must be obtained prior to beginning any work on the site. The Traffic Engineer requests a revised site plan showing 24 foot drives and a layout with improved maneuvering space. The two access drives must be combined into one drive, preferably on the west side of the property. Drives must be asphalt, not gravel. The existing apron off Baseline Rd. must be removed and the curb and sidewalk must be reconstructed. An AHTD permit for the driveway is required. Right-of-way must be dedicated along Baseline Rd. to provide a minimum of 45 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Baseline Rd. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4855-B 10 Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that on -site fire protection may be required. A water main extension would be needed to provide additional fire protection, if the fire hydrant is required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that the existing structure has sewer available, but that, if sewer service is required for the mini -storage units, a main extension will be retried to provide service. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that a 25 foot right- of-way will be required along the north side of the property bordering Baseline Rd. for possible future construction of a single or 3 phase circuit. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company approved the submittal. The Fire Department commented that there is a fire hydrant location within 500 feet of the proposed buildings. The drives should be a minimum of 20 feet in width, and should be able to support fire apparatus. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments include: The applicant has indicated that he proposes to use the existing house for general and professional office space, or for the office and residence for the mini -warehouse manager. If a broader use choice is desired, the applicant needs to specify the types of uses he desires to include in the approval; e.g., "by right" uses as listed in the 0-3 zoning district. The term "office" will not permit use of the building for other types of uses which are normally permitted in the office zoning districts (beauty shops, sit-down restaurants, etc.). The existing house has 1086 square feet; the carport, 240 square feet, for a total of 1,326 square feet. Sec. 36-502 requires, for general business and retail sales, one parking space for each 300 feet of gross floor area; therefore, for this building, 5 spaces are required. The site plan shows a concrete area for parking, but does not show how vehicles will be accommodated in the area. The 34 foot long by 26.7 foot wide area will not accommodate 5 vehicles, with maneuvering area. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4855-B The Code requires, for warehouse and storage uses, 5 parking spaces, plus 1 space per 2000 square fee of gross floor area, up to 50,000 SF. The storage use has 10,486 SF of area. Therefore, 10 spaces are required. Historically, in mini -storage uses, it is viewed that each storage space has its own parking area in the driveway, and this requirement is not applied strictly. As long as there are spaces provided for the office use (for those renting spaces and paying rents), parking is deemed sufficient. The Ordinance requires that the applicant submit a general schematic landscape plan. This must be prepared prior to a building permit being issued. At this time, the notation of areas to receive landscaping is sufficient. Fencing, or other approved means, is required to buffer commercial uses from residentially zoned or use areas. The blank face of a building can be an approved means of doing this. In the part of the site abutting residential zoned land, the blank wall of the building serves as the screening device. Any change in the configuration of the buildings to accommodate staff's recommendation also needs to take the need for the land use buffer requirement into consideration. The Plans Review Specialist notes: The proposed structure encroaches 12 1/2 feet into the required 14 1/2 foot wide land use buffer along the southern perimeter, and 3 feet into that portion of the eastern perimeter adjacent to the residentially zoned property. Trees and shrubs will be required within these buffer areas. Curb and gutter, or other approved landscape border, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. It will be necessary to bring this development into compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff comments that the proposed development is in the Geyer Springs West zoning district, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "MOC" (Mixed Office and 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4855-B Commercial) uses for the area. Although the rear 92 (±) feet extends into the "MR" (Mixed Residential) area to the south, because the tract is a single tract, not taking access to the area to the south, and because land use district lines are not "fixed" lines, no conflict with the Land Use plan is seen. The proposed development, then, is in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, subject to the applicant complying with Public Works and landscaping requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Mr. Alan Trammell, the applicant, was present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the request and the proposed site plan. The Public Works staff person, David Scherer, presented the Public Works comments, noting the need to eliminate one of the drives and to provide adequate vehicle parking and maneuvering space. The Neighborhoods and Planing staff presented the discussion outline comments, and discussed the issues of landscaping and buffering, parking requirements, and maintenance of the perimeter of the property between the mini -warehouse buildings and the property lines. Mr. Trammell indicated that the 2 foot space between the buildings and the property line would provide sufficient space for maintenance of the grounds. He explained that, at the existing residential structure, the carport would be included in the office building, and that required parking would be provided on -site. He said that the site plan would be revised, as needed. Following the discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan, but that the revised plan did not address the issues discussed at the Subdivision committee meeting; e.g., that no front or side yard landscape strips were provided; inadequate parking and vehicle maneuvering space had been provided; one of the two driveway access points from Baseline Rd. had not been eliminated; etc. Staff reported that the applicant had amended his request to seek approval of all C-3 uses by right for the existing residential structure, plus the residential use for an office manager, and the general and professional uses originally requested. Staff reported that the Planning staff did not object to this amended use list, since the property is currently zoned C-3. Staff noted, however, that uses may be limited by available 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4855 B parking. Staff reported that there had been no communications form area property owners concerning the issue. Staff recommended approval of the planned development, subject to staff working out the Neighborhoods and Planning and the Public Works concurs on the site plan. Mr. Alan Trammell, the applicant, was present. He explained that his engineer and evidently misunderstood the concerns which needed to be addressed. He said that the revised drawing had provided the required land use buffer along the rear of the property, and that the eastern -most drive had been widened, as required by Public Works. He said that, since the two drive access points had been installed by the Highway Department when the state widened Baseline Rd., he was under the impression that they could both remain. He expressed concern about the expense, safety, and rationale for requiring the access point to be removed. He said that, in the discussion regarding landscaping at the Subdivision Committee meeting, he had understood that landscaping could be dealt with at staff level at the time a building permit were requested. Staff explained that the revised plan had, in an attempt to provide the required parking, simply shown paving in the entire front yard of the residential structure, eliminating any space along the front and side yards for the required landscaping. Staff noted that, in the original site plan, the areas set aside for landscaping were provided for, and specific landscaping requirements could be worked out at the time a building permit is requested; however, since the areas were now eliminated and included in paved areas, this deficiency must be addressed. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, cited the landscaping requirements; that along the front of the property, the Land Use Buffer Ordinance requires a 14 1/2 foot landscape buffer, with a 10 foot minimum, with transfers; the Landscape Ordinance would require a minimum of a 6 foot strip. At the rear of the property, the requirement would be the same as the Baseline Rd. requirement. Along the side lot lines, a 6 foot minimum landscape strip would be required, he said. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, explained that the City Ordinance permits only one access point for each 300 feet of street frontage along arterial roadways; that, with the subject site being only 105 feet wide, the second access point would be required to be removed. He explained that, when the Highway Department widened the roadway, since the property was a residential property with two existing driveways, new aprons were provided for these two existing driveways. With the change in zoning and use, conformance with the regulation permitting only one driveway would be enforced. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-4855-B Commissioner Putnam recommended that the item be deferred, and that the applicant make needed changes, present them to the Subdivision Committee at the Committee's next meeting, and be heard by the Commission on April 25th. Addressing Mr. Trammell, Mr. Putnam indicated that Mr. Trammell might want to seek approval of a waiver of the restriction on the second drive access point. Chairperson Woods, saying that there were a number of issues to be resolved, suggested that the item be deferred. Mr. Trammell reported that he would, indeed, wish to seek a wavier of the restriction on the second driveway. Directors of Neighborhoods and Planning, Jim Lawson, suggested that the PCD site plan be approved, subject to meeting the landscaping, buffer, and parking requirements, with one driveway, then, make a recommendation on the requested wavier from the restriction on the second driveway. Commissioner Daniel echoed Commissioner Putnam and Chairperson Woods suggestion that the item be deferred. Commissioner Brandon voiced her concern that the landscape areas are not shown on the plan. Commissioner Adcock said that the presented site plan did not reflect what had been explained to her as the planned development. Mr. Trammell said that he would prefer to resolve the concerns during the process of staff review in view of a building permit, but if the Commissioner required it, he would request the suggested deferral. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the item until the April 25th. Commission meeting, with the requirement that the applicant will submit revised drawings by the March 18th. filing date and be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. K March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • E FILE NO.: Z-6090 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Ferguson - Conditional Use Permit 7300 Indiana Avenue Bobbie Ferguson A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a double -wide manufactured home on this R-2 zoned lot. The proposed site is located on the north side of . Indiana Avenue, approximately two blocks east of North Mississippi. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This neighborhood is comprised of single family, two-family and multifamily residential uses and zonings. The property immediately west is zoned R-2 and contains a single family residential structure with several two-family residences further west (zoned R-4). The property immediately east of this site is zoned R-2 and contains a single family residential structure. The property further east is zoned R-4/R-5 and contains two-family and multifamily residential uses. The properties to the north of this site are zoned R-5/R-2 and contain a mixture of single family, two-family and multifamily residential uses as well as a pre-school. The properties across Indiana Avenue to the south are zoned R-4 and contain two-family residences. This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a twenty foot wide concrete driveway, located near the center of the property. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6090 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments 5. Public Works' Comments: The Master Street Plan Right-of-way is 50 feet versus the platted 40 foot right-of-way. Residential driveways shall be concrete and have a minimum 5 foot turn out radius and the edge of the drive shall be 5 feet from the property line. The width of the driveway shall be 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum. 6. Utility Comments: AP&L - A 15 foot utility easement is requied along south property line. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the placement of a double -wide manufactured home on this R-2 zoned site located at 7300 Indiana Avenue. The 28 X 70 foot manufactured home will be located near the center of the property. There will be a 20 X 20 foot attached carport on the front of the structure, with a 20 foot wide concrete driveway from Indiana Avenue. A 10 X 10 foot accessory building will be located in the rear yard, near the rear property line. The manufactured home and accessory structure will comply with ordinance setback requirements. This neighborhood is made-up of single family, two-family, and multifamily residential uses and zonings. The proposed manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 2. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as established by the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6090 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: (JANUARY 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that additional right-of-way would need to be dedicated. There were no further comments on this matter. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 13, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant failed to send the required notification (to all the record owners of property within 200 feet of this property) for this meeting. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were several objectors present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission that the applicant had sent Notices of Public Hearing, but the applicant had not submitted an abstract list and a copy of the notice to staff. Therefore, there 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6090 was no way to verify that the notices were correct or sent to the correct property owners. He stated that staff would recommend a deferral of the item to April 25, 1996. Commissioner Adcock asked if the applicant had enough time to send the notices. Mr. Moore stated that this item was on the agenda for February 13, 1996 and was deferred until March 14, 1996 because the required notices were not sent at all. He stated that staff had been in contact with Erma Cobb, the agent for the application, and Mrs. Cobb had been notified of the meeting date as well as the requirement of submitting the abstract list and copy of the notice of public hearing to staff prior to the March 14, 1996 meeting. There was a general discussion between the Commission, City Attorney and Jim Lawson (Planning Director) as to whether or not the Commission could vote on the application at this meeting. It was determined that a vote could take place. A motion was made to take a vote on the application. The conditional use permit was denied by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: G-23-245 Name: Location: Owner/Applicant: Request• STAFF REVIEW• Riverfront Drive Right - of -Way Abandonment Located at Riverfront Drive, north of and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. John Haley and Chris Robertson/Joe D. White To abandon the excess right-of-way for Riverfront Drive, north and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way Public Works requests that the area of the proposed abandonment be retained as a drainage easement. Also, Public Works prefers not to close area in Parcel No. 2, as it is not a buildable area. Parks and Recreation recommend denial of the abandonment of Parcel No. 1. The area needs to be retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. 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 The applicant is dedicating.an additional 45 feet of right-of-way for Riverfront Drive. 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. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of these rights -of -way would be retained by the owner for a possible future office development. 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 an auto dealership 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. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The rights -of -way will be retained as utility and drainage easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed abandonment, as Public Works requests that Parcel No. 2 not be abandoned because it is not a buildable area and Parks and Recreation requests to retain Parcel No. 1 for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Joe White was present, representing the application. He gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer and Bill Henry, of Public Works, reviewed their comments with the Committee. K March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245 Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that a letter had been received from the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department. He stated that Parks is recommending denial of the abandonment of Parcel No. 1, as the area needs to be retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has not submitted all the required items to complete the application process. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the January 30, 1996 agenda. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the January 30, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that all of the required items to complete the application process have not been submitted. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the March 14, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested withdrawal of this item. Staff recommended approval of the withdrawal, without prejudice. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 3 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: G Z-6083 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John L. Burnett, Trustee J. E. Hathaway, Jr. East side of Cooper Orbit Road, north of Spring Valley Manor Rezone from R-2 to MF-18 Development of apartment project 31± acres Vacant, wooded property SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Undeveloped woodland; zoned R-2 South - Single -Family homes; zoned R-2 East - Undeveloped woodland; zoned R-2 West - Undeveloped woodland; zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Cooper Orbit is a collector and dedication of right-of-way to the horizontal curvature and tangent distance set forth in the Master Street Plan is required. Those requirements are 450 foot horizontal curves with 200 foot tangent distances between curves. With construction: One half street improvements to frontage with sidewalks to collector street standards. Base flood information will be required with grading and excavation permits. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. Other ordinance requirements will be noted at time of permits. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request is for Multifamily use. Though the site is along a collector, Staff cannot at this time support a density increase in this location. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: G Z-6083 (Cont.) STAFF ANALYSIS The request is to rezone this 31± acre tract from 11R-2" Single Family residential to "MF-18" Multifamily residential.- The property is wooded and undeveloped and the terrain is fairly rugged. No specific multifamily development has been proposed. MF-18 zoning would allow multifamily residential structures not to exceed 18 units per gross acre. The property is outside of but adjacent to the western city limits. It is within the City's extraterritorial zoning and subdivision jurisdiction. Most of the property in the immediate vicinity is wooded and undeveloped although a single family residential subdivision is adjacent to the south. No specific development has been proposed and staff questions the wisdom of such a density increase for this site. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan recommends single family for the site. A single family residential neighborhood is adjacent to the south. A substantial realignment of Cooper Orbit Road is required to conform to the Master Street Plan. Staff doubts the terrain could support a development of the density proposed. Staff believes it would be more appropriate for the applicant to approach the Commission with a specific developmental proposal which might address these concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested MF-18 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 2, 1996) James Hathaway was present representing the application. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred to the March 12, 1996 Subdivision Hearing to allow him an opportunity to address those issues raised by Staff. It was noted that the request for deferral was not received 5 working days prior to the public hearing and that a waiver of the Bylaws would be required. Jamie Brown, of 11 Manor Circle, and Wayne Elkins, of 12 Vista Drive, each expressed opposition to the proposed multifamily zoning. Mr. Elkins stated that he was concerned 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: G Z-6083 (Cont.) about protracted deferrals "wearing down the opposition.,, Each stated that they were not opposed to this deferral. A motion was made to waive the Bylaws. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 12, 1996 commission meeting. The motion was approved with a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested deferral of the item to the April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. The Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association had sent a letter agreeing to the deferral. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 3 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-643-B NAME: WHISPERING PINES SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: The tract bounded by Chicot Rd. on the east, Castle Valley Rd. on the south, Coulter Lake Rd. on the west, and Bunch Rd. on the north, approximately 2.25 miles south of Baseline Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• William J. Malone Billy Gordon MALONE AND ASSOCIATES VERSATILE INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 14124 Chicot Rd. P. O. Box 1480 Mabelvale, AR 72103 Hot Springs, AR 71902 888-3900 (501) 624-2892 AREA: 69.7 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 88 FT. NEW STREET: 4,370 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Geyer Springs West (15) CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Variance from the requirement to construct sidewalks along street frontages. 2) Variance from the requirement to provide stormwater detention facilities, except the detention facility shown on Tracts A and B. (Staff identified a number of other issues for which either variances need to be requested or modifications in the plat need to be made. The applicant has not request variances from the identified standards or submitted a revised plat.) BACKGROUND• A preliminary plat for this project was approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1986. Construction work on Phase I was begun, with road beds being prepared and some of the underground utilities being installed. Work was discontinued, however, and has remained dormant since that time. The golf course greens, shown within the boundary of the subdivision, were constructed and are part of the Whispering Pines Country Club golf course. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO S 643 B STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Recertificaiton of a previously approved preliminary plat is requested. The project involves the subdivision of a 69.7 acre tract, with 88 single-family lots and the construction of 4,370 feet of new internal streets. The applicant requests two waivers: 1) a waiver from the requirement to construct sidewalks along streets, explaining that sidewalks were not required in the original approval; and 2) a waiver from the requirement to construct stormwater detention facilities shown on the plat in the golf course fairways, explaining that the fairways are located outside the plat area. Provision of the designated stormwater detention facility shown on the plat to the east of the Phase II development, on Tracts A and B, is to be provided with Phase II development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat. A recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors of two waivers, the waiver of sidewalks and the waiver of stormwater detention, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Site development was begun in 1986, following Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat. Street rights - of -way were cleared, roadbeds prepared, curbs constructed, and water and storm drain lines were installed for the Phase I development (at the streets shown on the plat as Whispering Pine and Whispering Pine Trail) prior to work ceasing. Two fairways associated with the golf course for the whispering Pines Country Club were constructed. The boundary streets, Castle Valley Rd., Coulter Lake Rd., Bunch Rd., and Chicot Rd. are asphalt or "chip seal", -open ditch" street sections which do not meet current City street standards. The bulk of the tract is zoned R-2. There is a C-2 tract along the Chicot Rd. frontage of the plat area, and an MF-12 tract immediately west of Chicot Rd. fronting on Castle Valley Rd. All abutting property is zoned R-2, except for a small MF-6 area across Castle Valley Rd. at the southwest corner of the tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Little Rock Public works comments: 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-643-B The proposed street names for all internal streets are unacceptable. "Whispering Pine" cannot be used. (This prohibition was included in the comments in the original preliminary plat approval in 1986.) Tangent distances at reverse curves appear to violate the Master Street Plan standards. Necessary modifications in the plat must be made, or a variance from the standards must be requested. One-half street improvements must be made to the boundary streets as the various phases are constructed. Castle Valley Rd. from Chicot Rd. to the Phase I streets must be improved to residential street standards with the Phase I development to provide access to Phase I of portion of the subdivision. The "kink" in Castle Valley Rd. needs to be modified to a minimum 150 foot turn radius per the Master Street Plan standards. Plans for construction of streets and drainage must be submitted for approval. Stormwater detention must be provided within the plat boundary, or approved alternate means must be made to deal with stormwater detention. A waiver, as requested by the applicant, of the provision of stormwater detention due to the area originally designated as the stormwater detention facilities now being outside the boundary of the subdivision, cannot be approved. The existing installed systems are to be brought into conformance with current City standards. An AFDC&E permit and a site grading and excavation permit from the City must be obtained prior to any work being done. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that the water mains have been laid in a portion of the project, but were turned off several years ago. They will have to be tested and sterilized prior to their being accepted. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that, if overhead facilities are desired, 15 foot easements along the rear property lines will be required; but, that if underground service is desired, a 10 foot easement along the front of the lots will be required. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 _(Cont.) FILE NO S 643 B Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-94 states that: "A preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for one (1) year from the date of approval, or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the final plat ... must have been submitted.... Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth herein ... shall be null and void, and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary approval, subject to all zoning restrictions and this chapter." Because the project was abandoned for an extended period of time, submission of a new preliminary plat, conforming to the current regulations, is required. Sec. 31-232.d states: -Double frontage lots are prohibited...... Lots at the north end of whispering Pine Lane and whispering Pine Cove have frontages on both the interior cul-de-sac street and on Bunch Rd. Such double - frontage lots are prohibited by the regulations, and a revised plat is required or a variance must be requested by the applicant and approved by the Board of Directors. Sec. 31-232.f states: "Corner lots for residential use shall have a minimum width of seventy-five (75) feet to accommodate the required building line on both streets and to assure adequate visibility for traffic safety." At least two lots, Lots 94 and 8, fail to meet this requirement, and either a revised plat is required or a variance must be requested by the applicant and approved by the Board of Directors. Sec. 31-232 requires that the minimum width of single-family residential lots is to be 60 feet, with the width being measured at the building line. Some lots (e.g., Lots 72, 84, and 86) are less than 60 feet in width at the right-of- way line and do not appear to flare out enough to be 60 feet at the building line. The plat needs to be amended to make the lots wider to conform to the regulation, or a variance from the regulation needs to be requested by the applicant and approved by the Board of Directors. Alternatively, the applicant can plat a building line which is deeper into the lot, at a point where the width is a minimum of 60 feet, to address this issue. The request is for -re-activation of the Whispering Pines Subdivision", as "a resubmittal of a subdivision that was 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO 1 -(Cont.) FILE NO.• S-643-B approved in 1986..., and was partially constructed." The legal description of the property to be subdivided is the legal description of the entire 69.7 acre tract, as shown on the plat. At the same time, the applicant states that: "The stormwater detention facilities in phase I are part of the existing golf fairway facilities, and are located outside the proposed platted area." Presumably, the Country Club owns the golf course fairways, and the plat boundary does not include these areas. Presentation of the original plat, showing the lots and the fairways, with the legal description of the entire area, then, is not a valid plat submittal. If the fairways are to be included in the plat area, the owners of that land will have to be co -applicants in the preliminary plat application. Alternatively, if the plat boundary does not include the fairways, then the drawing needs to exclude these areas and the legal description needs to reflect this. Pursuant to Sec. 31-87, the name and address of the owner of record, giving the deed record book and page number or instrument number, must be furnished. This section requires that the average and minimum lot sizes are to be provided. This section requires that the applicant note the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. These have not been provided. Pursuant to Sec. 31-89, the storm drainage analysis and a preliminary storm drainage plan must be provided. This section also states that municipal boundaries which abut the subdivision must be shown. The storm drainage analysis and the storm drainage plan have not been provided. The Little Rock City Limits abuts the site along Castle Valley Rd. along the southeast boundary of the site, and this is not shown on the plat. Sec. 31-89 requires that any area of the plat which lies within the 100-year floodplain be shown. The general notes shown on the plat indicate that the first floor finish elevations are to be a minimum of 1 foot above the 100-year flood plain elevation, but the areas and the 100-year floodplain elevation is not shown. This issue must be addressed. If all or portions of the plat area are within the 100-year floodplain, this must be shown on the plat and the minimum floor areas must be designated. Sec. 31-89 requires that certification that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the office of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last seven (7) years be provided. The wording of the certification does not contain this provision. Sec. 31-91 provides the needed wording for the Certificate of 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-643-B Preliminary Surveying Accuracy. The Certificate provided on the plat does not conform to this section. Sec. 31-89 requires that proposed PAGIS monuments be indicated. These have not been shown. Sec. 31-89 requires that the zoning classifications within the plat area and of abutting lands be shown. This has not been done. Through streets (streets connecting other streets) and cul- de-sac street which are in excess of 750 feet (but less than 1,000 feet) in length are to be built to "standard residential street" standards, and are required to have a sidewalk along at least one side of the street. All the streets (except for the cul-de-sac section shown as Whispering Pine Trail, northwest from the Whispering Pine intersection, the cul-de-sac section shown as Whispering Pine Cove, and the cul-de-sac section of Whispering Pine Lane northwest from its intersection with Whispering Pine Cove) will require a sidewalk. Sec. 31-89 requires this information be shown, as well as the width of proposed streets. The applicant has asked for a waiver of the sidewalk requirements, noting that this is being requested, since "sidewalks were not required in the original previously approved subdivision". The proposed width of internal streets is not shown. Boundary street improvements are required. (Construction of one-half width of the required Master Street Plan street sections is required, pursuant to Sec. 31-201.) Public works has noted this requirement, which will apply to all four boundary streets, and the applicant has not indicated whether it is his intention to comply with this requirement. It is also unclear whether the request for a waiver of sidewalk construction requirements applies to the boundary streets as well as to the internal streets. Sec. 31-89 requires that, not only the names of recorded subdivision abutting the site are to be shown, but the plat book and page number or instrument number are to be shown. Castle Valley Subdivision, Phase I, is an abutting subdivision, but the required information is not shown. Whispering Pine Lane is shown terminating at the west boundary of Tract B, a multi -family zoned tract. This would permit: 1) a temporary dead-end becoming a permanent dead- end (should a multi -family development be constructed on the tract); 2) a transition from a public street to a private street without the required provision for a turn -around (should an internal drive be extended from this termination); or, 3) an extension of Whispering Pine Lane N. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-643-8 eastward. These "loose ends" need to be dealt with and provision for a proper termination or extension of whispering Pine Lane needs to be made at this time. The request is for approval of a preliminary plat. The Planning Commission and City staff are charged with enforcement of the Subdivision Regulations. The City Attorney has previously cited the Arkansas Supreme Court decision which mandates approval of preliminary plats, if proposed plats meet the requirements of the City Subdivision Regulations. Lot sizes (as long as they meet the minimum size of lots prescribed in the Subdivision Regulations) or the size of homes in the proposed subdivision not being consistent with the size of lots or homes in the surrounding areas are not valid reasons to withhold approval of a preliminary plat. Approval of a preliminary plat must be based on its conformance with the City ordinances standards. E. ANALYSIS• There are numerous issues to be resolved before staff can recommend approval of the preliminary plat. There are variances to be requested or redesigns to be accomplished. There are questions to be answered so that staff can formulate recommendations on the issues. There is a fundamental question regarding the land area which is included in the plat. Because the proposed plat design is a -re-activation" of a previously approved and partially constructed subdivision, with some of the infrastructure already in place, staff can support some of the needed variances (e.g., the corner lot width variance, the minimum lot width variance, and the minimum street tangent length variance), and can support the waiver of the prohibition on double -frontage lots, as long as a no vehicle access easement" is platted along the rear property lines. Staff does not, however, support the two requested waivers (i.e., the waiver of internal or boundary street sidewalks, or the waiver of stormwater detention being provided.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that item be deferred until the April 25, 1996 Subdivision hearing, and that the applicant submit a preliminary plat which conforms to the Subdivision Regulations, with specific requests for desired variances. 7 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Mr. Billy Gordon, the applicant, and Mr. Bill Malone, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the background of the request; that the preliminary plat had been approved in 1986, but that the approval of the plat had lapsed due to secession of work on the project, and that a new owner was requesting re- certification of the preliminary plat. Staff presented the proposed subdivision layout, and reviewed the nature of the proposed development with the Committee members. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, presented the Public Works comments. He mentioned that, in the current standards, there are specified minimum tangent lengths required between reverse curves, and that, although the tangent lengths are not noted on the plat, they do not appear to meet the minimum requirements. He said that, if the applicant wished to pursue a variance to the Board of Directors, the Public Works staff could support the request. Mr. Scherer discussed with the applicant and the Committee members the need to make improvements at the curve in Castle Valley Rd. in conjunction with the first phase of development, indicating that the roadway, as it presently exists, is unsafe. Mr. Scherer pointed out that one-half street improvements would be required at the boundary streets as the various phases of development were undertaken. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed the prepared discussion outline with the applicant and the Committee members. The requirement that lots have a minimum width at the building line of 60 feet was reported, and it was noted that at least three of the lots did not appear to meet this requirement. The requirement that corner lots have a minimum width of 75 feet was reported, and it was noted that at least two of the corner lots do not meet this requirements. Staff noted that, since much of the infrastructure work had been done under the prior approval, and that moving lot lines to accommodate the needed changes would present a hardship, staff indicated that the applicant might want to seek a variance form the standards. Staff expressed concern that the street shown as "whispering Pine Lane" "dead -ends" into the multi -family zoned tract, and that a public street dead - ending into an apartment project would be unacceptable. Both the Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planning staff persons recommended that this street be terminated with a cul-de-sac, or that the roadway be extended to Castle Valley Rd. There was a discussion on the location of sidewalks within the subdivision. It was pointed out that the thru street and connecting streets, are to meet the standard residential street standards, and a sidewalk along at least one side of such streets is required. Staff pointed out that, in the originally approved plat, there was to be no access from the subdivision to Bunch Rd., and that, in fact, the subdivision was to be fenced off from Bunch Rd. Mr. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643-B Gordon and Mr. Malone indicated that the street shown as "Whispering Pine Dr." would be terminated with a cul-de-sac at the northern boundary of the property, and that no access would be taken to Bunch Ln. from this street. This, they continued, would limit the access to Bunch Ln. to only the few lots along the northern boundary of the subdivision. The applicant and engineer assured the Committee and staff that the issues raised would be addressed and that a revised plat would be presented to staff in the time frame required. With this discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that, due to there being major issues and numerous concerns to be resolved on the preliminary plat application, that staff recommended, with the applicant's concurrence, a deferral of the hearing of this item, with the requirement that the applicant submit revised drawings and responses to the issues raised n the staff report by the next filing date, Monday, March 18, 1996, and that the item be discussed by the Subdivision Committee at its meeting of April 4, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: Z-2326-A NAME: RICHARDS -- SHORT -FORM PD-C LOCATION: On the east side of Mabelvale Pike, approximately 500 feet south of W. 65th. St. DEVELOPER• Rich Richards RICHARDS HONDA-YAMAHA 6600 S. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72209 562-0910 AREA: 0.42 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STAFF UPDATE• PROPOSED USES• FT. NEW STREET• 0 All -Terrain Vehicle (ATV) training course 65th. Street -West (12) None The applicant withdrew his requested planed development application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that a FAXed note from the applicant was received on March 4, 1996, in which the applicant asked that his requested PD-C be withdrawn. Staff recommended that the requested withdrawal be approved, with prejudice, prohibiting the applicant from resubmit the same or virtually the same application for 12 months. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.• 3 FILE NO.: Z-3454-A NAME: COURTSIDE PLACE -- LONG -FORM PD-R LOCATION: North side of Otter Creek Parkway, approximately 0.3 mile west of Stagecoach Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Tommy Hodges Pat McGetrick OTTER CREEK LAND CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING #2 Otter Creek Ct. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-5557 223-9900 AREA: 12.68 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 36 FT. NEW STREET: 1,200 ZONING: MF-18 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Variance from the required minimum front building setback dimension of 25 feet. 2) Variance from the 100 foot minimum average residential lot depth requirement. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Development of 35 -patio homes" on a 12.68 acre tract as a "plan- ned development" is proposed. The individual lots on which the homes are to be constructed occupy 5.9 acres of the tract. "Open space" (the land designated as Tract A, the floodway of Calleghan Branch Creek, and the landscape area along Otter Creek Parkway) occupies the remaining 6.78 acres. The proposal involves creat- ing a loop street, with a single entrance onto Otter Creek Parkway; the street is to be a public street in a 50 foot right- of-way. Lots are to be an average of 53 feet by 90 feet in size, with the front building setback line to be set at 10 feet off the right-of-way line, except at two lots at the northeast corner of the tact, where the front building line is to be set at 20 feet off the right-of-way line. Rear building lines are 20 feet off the rear lot lines. Individual homes are to be a minimum or 1,400 square feet in size, one and two story in height, with two - car garages for each of the homes. An identification sign is to be located in the open space landscape area at the entrance to March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3454-A the development. Because of the "patio home" concept of the development, smaller than normal lots are proposed, with the homes being closer to the street than is normally required. Variances, then, are requested, including: 1) a variance to permit lots of less than the required 100 foot average depth, to permit lots averaging 90 feet in depth, with one lot of 78.15 feet in depth, as shown on the plat; and, 2) a variance to permit front building setbacks of 10 feet off the right-of-way line (except two lots with a 20 foot building setback, as shown on the plat), in lieu of the required 25 foot minimum front building setback. Dedication of an easement at the floodway for maintenance and access is proposed. Maintenance of Tract A is to be the responsibility of the abutting Otter Creek Racquet Club. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Development - Residential for the development of the patio home project. Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a variance from the required minimum 25 foot front building setback line to permit 10 and 20 foot front building setback lines, as shown on the plat. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors is requested to permit lots of less than 100 feet in average depth. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. It lies between the Otter Creek Villas Apartments on the east and the Otter Creek Racquet Club on the west. The topography of the buildable area is fairly level, with only a 2 foot grade differential across the lot. At the rear (north) edge of the buildable area is the floodway of the Calleghan Branch Creek. The current zoning of the tract is MF-18, with this zoning district extending eastward to include the apartments to the east. The remaining property surrounding the site, includ- ing across Otter Creek Parkway, is zoned R-2. Otter Creek Baptist Church lies across Otter Creek Parkway to the south. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: The 100-year base flood elevations and the floodway conflict with each other and with the FIRM. The engineer of record must develop the BFE and floodway 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3454-A boundary data that is approved by the Corps of Engineers, or observe 100 to 115 foot setback (as is on FIRM) from the centerline of the creek. Several lots could be impacted. An AFDC&E permit and site grading and excavation permits (including a Development Permit) from the City shall be obtained prior to beginning any work. The loop street qualifies as a minor residential street. The street layout is acceptable, and no sidewalks are required by the Ordinance. A sidewalk is required to be constructed along the Otter Creek Parkway frontage of the site. Stormwater detention is required. Shared driveways at the corner lots are recommended, due to the limited street frontage. Soils engineering shall be submitted to determine street design requirements. Denial is recommended of the 22 foot space between the garage and street, since an unsafe sight distance is created. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility notes that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the rear of all lots (10 foot total at back- to-back lots). Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approve the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments include: For the PD-R, a preliminary plat is required. The submitted drawing needs to comply with the submittal requirements for a preliminary plat, showing all 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-A required information as required by Sec. 31-89 thru 31- 91 of the Code; including: Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed design of the streets must be shown. The 50 foot right-of- way for a public street is shown, as are the street lines. The street width, however, is not shown. It is not indicated whether the street is to be a 27 foot street, or a 24 foot wide street, as would be permitted for a minor residential street. Sec. 31-89 requires a storm drainage analysis and a preliminary storm drainage plan be provided. This has not bee furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that the physical description of monuments be indicated, noting their size and material. No identification of monuments has been furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that certification that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the office of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years be provided. No certification has been included. Sec. 31-91 requires the inclusion of the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy, Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy, and Certificate of Preliminary Plat Approval. No Certifications have been included on the plat. Tract A does not have the required access to a public street. Provision for access to this tract must be made. The applicant has stated that Tract A is to be joined with property to the west, with the Racquet Club property, and is to be maintained by the Association. This will provide the required access, but access must be legally achieved and recorded. Sec. 31-256 requires building lines for residential lots to be at leas 25 feet from the street property line. The applicant has requested a 10 foot front building line at all but two of the lots, and a 20 foot building line on these two. The 10 foot front building setback line proposal does not provide sufficient stacking space between the curb line and the building line for vehicles. Vehicles parked in so close a proximity to the curb do not provide sufficient sight distance for pedestrians walking from behind a parked car. 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-A Sec. 31-232.b states that: "No lot ... shall avenge less than one hundred (100) feet in depth." The proposed lots range from 78.15 feet along one of the sides of one of the lots to well over 100 feet in depth, with the average length of side lot lines being 90 feet. A variance to permit lots of less than the 100 feet of average depth is required. Sec. 31-232.f, which states that corner lots for residential use shall have a minimum width of 75 feet, is apparently not applicable in this situation. The lots with front and side frontages are along a loop street, and so are not technically "corner" lots. No variance, in this case, is required from the provisions of Sec. 31-232.f. Sec. 31-232.a states that the minimum lot dimensions are to conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the particular zoning district. Minimum lot widths, except as noted above, are not specified in the Subdivision Regulations. Since the proposal is a planned development, the minimum lot widths established by the Zoning Regulations are not applicable. In the R-2 zoning district, for example, the minimum lot width is 60 feet. In the R-3 district, the minimum lot width is 50 feet. The proposed patio home development has lot widths averaging 53 feet. Two of the "flared" lots at the curve in the loop street have lot widths at the right-of-way line of just under 30 feet; two others have frontages of just over 30 feet; a few of the lots have frontages of around 45 feet. Sec. 31-232.b provides that lot width shall be measured at the building line, and that for lots abutting cull -de -sac, the average width of the lot shall be used. If the width of the lots at the building lines, or the average lot width provision is applied to the flared lots, then the lot widths are at least in conformance with the R-3 requirements. Sec. 36-254 requires side yards in the R-2 zoning district to be a minimum of 10% of the average lot width, up to a maximum required side yard of 8 feet. Sec. 36-255 requires side yards in the R-3 zoning district to be a minimum of 10% of the average lot width, up to a maximum required side yard of 5 feet. The proposed development does not identify the proposed minimum side yard dimensions, and these need to be indicated. Possibly, -buildable" areas need to be shown on the plat to. 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-A Sec. 36-254 (the R-2 regulations) and Sec. 36-255 (the R-3 regulations) require rear yards of not less than 25 feet. The proposal is for 20 foot rear yards. Again, since the application is for a planned development, the rear yards established for lots in the specified zoning districts are not applicable, but may be used as a guide in determining whether the proposed rear yard dimension in the planned development is appropriate. Sec. 31-2 and Sec. 31-209 permit loop streets of less than 1500 feet in length to be classified as a minor residential street. The total length of the proposed loop street, including the entrance street, is 1200 feet. The street, therefore, may be 24 feet in width, with no sidewalk being required. The sidewalk along Otter Creek Parkway, however, is not excluded from the requirement. The Plans Review Specialist comments that, in the case of a residential planned development, no landscaping comments are applicable. The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Otter Creek District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends multi- family use for the site. The request is for a small lot single-family development, and this type use is appropriate for the area. No Land Use Plan amendment is required. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant has proposed a small lot development, with a number of standards being less than would be permitted in a subdivision developed according to the standard Subdivision and zoning Regulations. The lots, which average 53 feet in width, are in conformance with the R-4 regulations; the lot depth of less than 100 feet is not. With smaller homes, with the desire of "empty nesters" for less yard to maintain, with the proximity of open space and recreation amenities, the shallower lots are not perceived as objectionable or a significant variance from the required 100 foot minimum depth. The 20 foot rear yard dimension, since the rear of the lots do not abut other residential developments, is not objectionable. The 10 foot front yard setback, however, is objectionable; here is a safety concern in this case. Either a minimum 15 foot front building setback line needs to be maintained, or garages need to be set back to provide the needed vehicle stacking space. Common drives with side or rear entrances to garages could be a possibility to address this concern. Overall, the applicant has (or can) address the concerns of the Neighborhoods and Planning staff and the Public Works R March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-A staff. There are deficiencies in the plat which must be added or provided, but these can be dealt with by the applicant and his engineer after Planning Commission approval, but prior to staff accepting the plat as the approved version. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, subject to the Board of Directs approving the required variance. Staff recommends approval of the requested 10 foot front yard setback, subject to provision being made to assure adequate safe vehicle stacking space at the garages. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to permit the lots of less than 100 feet in average depth. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Mr. Tommy Hodges, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the proposed development plat and outlined the proposal. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, presented the Public Works comments, and specifically noted the concerns regarding the floodway information, the sidewalk requirement along Otter Creek Parkway, and the need for shared driveways, especially at corner lots. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed with the applicant and the Subdivision Committee members the concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would make the necessary amendments to the plat which were cited. The various variances and waivers were discussed; the need to provide adequate vehicle stacking space which did not pose a hazard for pedestrians, especially children, walking from behind parked cars, was discussed. With this discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the deficiencies noted and discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and had amended his request from a 10-foot front building setback line, in lieu of the standard 25 foot setback, to a 15 foot from t building setback on all but two of the lots, Lots 24 and 35, two back-to-back lots on the inner circle which have the least amount of depth, for which a 10- foot setback is continued to be requested. Staff noted that the Traffic Engineer had notified the applicant that parking will be 7 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3454-A prohibited along the inside curb of the circle street. Staff explained that staff can support the amended variance request for 15 foot setbacks on all but the two cited lots, since there will be no parking on the inner side of the street. Staff reported that there were no land use issues involved in the applicant, and that no communications from area property owners had been received by staff. Staff recommended approval. of the PD-R, subject to compliance with the staff comments cited in the staff report; approval of the 15 foot front building setback line variance for all lots except for Lots 24 and 35 for which a 10 foot building setback line is requested; approval of the 20 foot rear building setback line; and, approval of the variance to permit the less than 100 foot deep lots. The recommendation for approval was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 0 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-4550-A NAME: COPY SYSTEMS -- SHORT -FORM PD-C LOCATION: On the south side of W. 9th. St., between Gaines St. and State St. DEVELOPER: John D. Frederick Michael S. Rebick COPY SYSTEMS, INC. 1121 Spring St. Little Rock, AR 72202 376-2679 AREA: 0.86 ACRES ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 8 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: ENGINEER• PORTER-CRAWFORD COMPANY, INC. P. O. Box 5512 Little Rock, AR 72215 666-5407 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Downtown (5) None Office equipment sales and service A PCD, named Chandlers PCD, was approved for the subject site in Ordinance No. 14,904, dated July 2, 1985. Sec. 36-454.d states that: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of preliminary plan approval to submit the final development plan." Sec. 36-458 states: "The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked... if the applicant has not submitted a final development plan ...within one (1) year of the preliminary plan approval ... (or if) no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the ... date of the final plan....11 Since no final plan has been submitted, nor any building permit issued, since 1985, the approval is voidable, and, with approval of the new planned development, the original approval needs to be revoked. The north -south alley lying within the site was closed by Ordinance No. 14,868, dated April 16, 1985. This ordinance, however, retained the full width of the alley as a public utility and drainage easement. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4550-A STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of the 0.86 acre tract, occupying 5 lots, plus a closed alley, within a City block for their Copy Systems business location. Copy Systems is an office machines business, and the facility is to include display area, service area, warehouse area, and offices. On -site customer and service personnel parking areas are provided, as well as a loading dock area. The building is to be a 12,000 square foot, one-story building. Parking for 13 customers is to be located along the Gaines St. frontage of the building; parking for 28 service and employee vehicles is to be located to the west of the building, with access off State St. The loading dock drive access is to be off W. 9th. St. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with City requirements. The east line of the utility and drainage easement, which runs north and south in the block and which was retained when the alley was abandoned in 1985, is 140 feet off the Gaines St. property line. The west face of the building is to be located 147 feet off the Gaines St. property line, or 7 feet into the easement. The applicant, then, requests abandonment of that portion of the easement which would lie under their new building, or the east 7 feet of the easement. This will leave the west 13 feet of the 20 foot easement in place for any existing or potential utility or drainage facilities. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for a PD-C is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for abandonment of the east 7 feet of the 20 foot wide north -south utility and drainage easement abutting Lots 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12, in Block 174, Original City of Little Rock. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is made up of 5 lots, plus a "closed" alley, which have been previously developed, but which are currently vacant. The alley was closed, but the full width of the 20 foot alley was retained as an easement for utilities and drainage. There is one additional lot in the subject block, lying at the southwest corner of the tract, with frontage on State St. The remained of the south boundary of the tract abuts the I-630 corridor. The site is zoned PCD; however, the PCD approval has expired. The abutting lot, as well as all other property 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4550-A surrounding the site is zoned I-2 (except the I-630 land abutting the site to the south). C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: A grading plan will be required to be provided prior to construction. The corner radii at the street intersections must be reconstructed to a 31.5 foot radius versus the 25 foot radius, as shown. A 20 foot radial dedication at the corners must be provided. Any damaged sidewalks or curbs must be repaired or replaced. Handicap ramps will be required. The dock access drive on W. 9th. St. will need to be widened to 40 feet to accommodate anticipated truck turning movements. (The applicant can discuss this issue with the Traffic Engineering staff, and any needed modification in the width of the drive can be made following further traffic engineering study.) Little Rock Municipal Water Works has no objection to the proposed development. Little Rock Wastewater Utility notes that there is an existing 6" sewer main located in the alley easement running north to south from 9th. St. Wastewater Utility must be contacted to locate the main and to approve the construction in the area. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments include: No provision has been made for signage in the planned development. Any pole -mounted or monument signage needs to be specified and located on the site plan. The building is 12,000 square feet in size. Pursuant to Sec. 36-502, if the entire building area is counted as general office and retail use, then one space is required for each 300 square feet of floor area, up to 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4550-A 10,000 square feet, then, for the 2000 SF over 10,000 square feet, the requirement is 95% of this basic requirement. The parking required will be 40 spaces; 41 is provided. (The required number of spaces can be reduced if the amount of service and warehousing areas are specified, since these types of use areas require less parking.) There is an.existing sewer line in the utility easement located on the site. The applicant is seeking to abandon a portion of that easement, and wastewater Utility, as well as the remaining utilities and the City, will need to approve the abandonment of the portion of the easement. Abandonment of the 7 feet of the easement will be necessary for the proposed building to be located on the site. If the portion of the easement cannot be abandoned, the building will have to be reduced in size. The Plans Review Specialist notes that the proposed parking lots project 6 1/2 feet into the required 12 1/2 feet (8 foot minimum, with transfers) street buffers required along State and Gaines Streets. A total of 6%, or 740 square feet of interior landscaping is required within the western parking lot by the Landscape Ordinance. The plan submitted is 398 square feet short of this requirement. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Downtown District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office -Warehouse. The proposed use in conformance with the Plan. The proposed development is on platted lots. Other than the easement abandonment issue, there is no platting issue involved in the planned development. There is only one 50 foot lot remaining in the block which is not part of the subject development. As long as any needed utilities can be provided to this lot for any potential development on this lot, there should be no need for the retention of the entire 20 foot easement to the lot. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development. Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of the east 7 feet of the utility and drainage easement, as requested. E March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4550-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) The applicants and their representative were present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the request and the prepared discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed with the applicant, their representative, and the Committee members the various Public Works concerns. Mr. Scherer specifically addressed the requirements for repair or improvements to the curbs and sidewalks abutting the site and for provision of handicap ramps. There was a discussion involving Mr. Scherer and Richard Wood, of the Neighborhoods and Planing staff, concerning the nature of the I-630 right-of-way, with Mr. Wood explaining that the U. S. Government holds fee simple title to the land on which the interstate highway lies, thus, the boundary street requirements for improvements along the I-630 frontage of the site area not applicable. There was discussion regarding the type of delivery vehicles which would use the loading dock, with the applicant being urged to discuss this with the Traffic Engineer in designing the drive access to accommodate the type truck which will be using the dock. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff produced a copy of the Ordinance in which the north -south alley was abandoned, and explained that the width of the alley was retained as a utility and drainage easement, and that abandonment of at least a portion of the easement would be necessary. Staff reported that the owner of the one remaining lot in the block had contacted staff to express concern that the availability of utilities to remain in or use the easement would not be affected. Staff advised the applicants to begin the application process to abandon the needed portion of the easement. It was determined that the planned development application would be amended to include the request to abandon the east 7 feet of the easement. With this discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commissions for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the concerns and issues raised and discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff reported that the issue of the utility and drainage easement in the abandoned alley is resolved; wastewater Utility, the only utility which has a line in the alley, recommended approval of the abandonment of the east 7 feet of the easement to permit the building to be placed on the site as shown. Staff reported that there are no land use issues to be resolved, and that no communications from area property owners had been received objecting to this issue. Staff reported that a representative of the abutting lot at the southwest corner of the site had been assured by the applicant and staff that the existing sewer main would not be made E March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4550-A unavailable for any future service to the lot in the development of the subject site. Staff recommended approval of the PCD and of the abandonment of the east 7 feet of the utility and drainage easement. A recommendation of approval of the PCD and of the abandonment of the east 7 feet of the easement was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 0 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z-4731-A NAME: MEARS MINI -WAREHOUSE -- LONG -FORM PD-C LOCATION: East of Battery St., at and beyond the present dead- end of W. 2nd. St. and W. Markham St., abutting the Union Pacific Railroad tracts lying to the east. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick Roger Mears MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 6.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3 & MF-24 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights-Hillcrest (4) CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE• The application, as submitted, is incomplete, and the applicant and his project engineer have been unable to submit the needed information and the required amended and additional drawings. The applicant has, consequently, agreed to seek a deferral of the hearing of this application to permit the required information and documents to be submitted and reviewed by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant's representative, McGetrick Engineering, submitted a letter on March 8, 1996, asking that the item be deferred to permit the applicant to make adjustments in the site layout and obtain information requested by the Subdivision Committee. Staff explained that, because of the numerous deficiencies in the submittal and with the design changes discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff deferred preparing a staff report/write-up on the issue. Staff recommends that the revised site plan, with all required information, be submitted to staff by the March 18th. filing date, proceed through the review process as a new application, be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th., and be March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4731-A hearing on the next regular Subdivision hearing of April 25, 1996. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. kA March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-6098 NAME: HARRIS -- SHORT -FORM POD LOCATION: On the east side of S. Battery St., approximately 500 feet south of W. Roosevelt Rd., at 2609 S. Battery St. DEVELOPER: Mary L. Harris 2609 S. Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 0.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-4 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residence & Beauty Shop PLANNING DISTRICT: Central City (8) CENSUS TRACT: 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to operate a one -chair beauty shop in an accessory building on the property which she owns and on which her home is located. She related that there will be only one or two customers at a time. She proposed to reside in the home and limit the beauty shop operation to the single chair, with herself as the sole beautician. The applicant, before knowing that there was a requirement for approval by the City, bought the accessory structure and located it beside the house, along the north property line. She spent a "great deal" of money for plumbing and electrical work to prepare for operation of the beauty shop before she found out that Zoning approval is required. Subsequently, to comply with building setback requirements, she relocated the building to the rear of the residence, as reflected on the site plan. She proposes to add a new driveway alongside the existing "broken brick" driveway, to provided needed parking. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a POD. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6098 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a 75 foot wide by 140 foot deep City lot, with frontage on S. Battery St. and an alley in the rear. There is an existing one-story home on the property and a small storage shed at the rear of the lot. A manufactured building has been located on the site at the rear of the residence. A -broken brick" driveway lies along the north property line, extending from the street to the rear of the residence. The site is zoned R-4. All abutting and area properties are zoned R-4, as well. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: Any damage to the sidewalk or curb along the Battery St. frontage of the site must be repaired or replaced. The north edge of the drive must be a minimum of 5 feet from the north property line. (Normally, commercial drives are to be 25 feet from the property line; however, with the limited commercial use proposed, staff can support the 5 foot setback.) The driveway must be an all-weather surface. Little Rock Municipal Water Works will require a RPZ backflow preventer on the domestic service to the beauty shop. Little Rock Wastewater Utility notes that sewer service is available. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Neighborhoods and Planning comments include: The survey shows a 9 foot broken brick driveway; the site plan shows an additional proposed 9 foot driveway. Clarification needs to be provided by the applicant as to whether both driveways are to remain or whether the removal of the broken brick driveway is intended. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6098 Conformance with the Public Works requirement for a minimum 5 foot distance form the driveway access point to the north property line must be gained. The driveway must be an all-weather surface. The site plan needs to have the dimensions added to show the distance of the new building from the property lines and from the residence. Walks will be required to the building. Sec. 36-452 states that: "The POD district is intended to accommodate planned office developments, as well as mixed use developments combining residential, commer- cial, or both, with office uses...." Sections 36-279 and 36-280 permit beauty shops as conditional uses in the 0-1 and 0-2 zoning district; Sec. 36-281 permits beauty shops as both accessory and conditional uses in the 0-3 district. Combining this "office" use with the residential use qualifies the development as a "POD". The building is 225 square feet in size. The Ordinance requires one parking space for each 200 feet of floor area. Parking for one vehicle is required; there is stacked parking in the existing driveway. Signage and site lighting have not been addressed. These issues need to be discussed and resolved. The Plans Review Specialist notes that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the north side of this property which abuts residentially zoned property. This screen may be a 6 foot high wood fence, with its structural supports on the inside of the fence, or may be evergreen shrubs 30" in height, spaced every 3 feet, with the ability to grow to 6 feet within 3 years. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff comment that the site is in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single - Family uses. The request is Single -Family and Commercial. The proposed use is, then, in conflict with the Plan. There is not justification to place such a non-residential use in this location. There are minor site plan and project narrative issues to be resolved, as noted in the staff report. The major issue is the conflict with the Land Use Plan. Although the proposed use is extremely limited, it is, nevertheless, in conflict with the Land Use Plan. K, March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6098 In deliberating the appropriateness of the use in the neighborhood, and the issue of the conflict with the Land Use, the Commission also needs to consider whether an amendment to the Land Use Plan is appropriate. (In other words, if the Commission deems the use to be appropriate, should the Land Use Plan be amended to accommodate the use or, alternatively, is the use so limited that a Land Use Plan amendment is unnecessary.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the POD because of the conflict with the Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) The applicant and her representative were present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the applicant's request and reviewed with the Committee members the proposal and the site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments, noting the requirement to repair or replace any damaged sidewalk and curb, and to maintain a minimum 5 foot clearance from the north property line to the drive access point. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed with the applicant and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, noted the buffer requirements between the commercial use and the abutting residential use area. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the requested use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan, and that three phone calls and one letter had been received form neighbors who object to the proposed use. Staff pointed out that the proposed one -chair beauty shop use is to be in an accessory building. Staff recommended denial of the POD. The applicant, Ms. Mary Harris, and her representative, Mr. Randal Mitchell, were present. Mr. Mitchell reported that Ms. Harris is requesting a one -chair beauty salon, and that she would comply with the requirements to relocate the north edge of the driveway to provide a 5 foot clearance between the driveway and the north property line, and to widen the driveway 8 additional feet. Ms. Harris, he related, would install a 6 foot privacy fence along the north property line, and he said that signage would be limited to a 2 foot by 2 foot sign to be mounted on the face of the building. 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6098 Commissioner Putnam asked if the Land Use Plan would be required to be changed if the Commission were to approve the very limited one -chair beauty shop use. Staff responded that a change in the Land Use Plan would not be required, since the use is of such limited scope. Commissioner Ball asked for information as to the appropriate location for a beauty shop, to which Dana Carney, Zoning Administrator, responded that the first place in the Zoning Ordinance at which beauty and barber shops appear as "by right" uses is in the C-1 zoning district; that they are permitted as conditional uses in each of the Office zoning districts. Chairperson Woods asked if the accessory building which is proposed for use as the beauty shop is a proposed or existing building. Mr. Mitchell explained that Ms. Harris had not been familiar with zoning and building code requirements; that she had purchased the building from Morgan Buildings, who had delivered and set up the building, and had begun electrical and plumbing work on the building before the electrical inspector had informed her of the requirements to get zoning clearance on the use. He had also learned that the location Morgan Buildings had set the building was not in conformance with building setback requirement, and that she had had to relocated the building. He related that Ms. Harris has spent approximately $8,000 to date in an attempt to begin her business, and that the money would be lost if the planned development were not approved. Commissioner Ball asked if there were "sunsetting" provisions which can be imposed on a PUD, to which staff and Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson responded that, since a PUD is a zoning action, no further review or time limitation is possible. Assistant City Attorney Dawson added that approval of a use does not set a president which will be applicable in future applications. Staff explained that, initially, Morgan Buildings had placed the building along the north property line, at the east end of the driveway, and that Ms. Harris had had to pay to have the building moved to meet side yard setbacks to a location behind her home. Commissioner Daniel suggested that the POD be limited to Ms. Harris's use only; that the beauty shop use not be allowed to be transferred to another user should Ms. Harris not continue operation of the beauty shop, to which staff responded that this could be a condition of the approval, explaining that the proposed POD is the "Harris POD", and, absent a request by the 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6098 applicant for inclusion of other users, could be limited to the applicant's exclusive use. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD, subject to the POD being limited to the applicant's use, and subject to her compliance with the conditions cited in the staff report. The motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. 2 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-6099 NAME: BENTLEY ACRES -- LONG -FORM PD-R LOCATION: On the east side of Alexander Rd., southeast of the east City Limits of Alexander, AR. DEVELOPER: Ronnie Bentley 2410 I-30 Alexander, AR 72202 847-5155 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 42.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 140 FT. NEW STREET: 5,200 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Manufactured Homes PLANNING DISTRICT: Geyer Springs -West (15) CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE: The applicant, after further review of the Subdivision and zoning Ordinance requirements for both manufactured home subdivisions and mobile home parks has requested a deferral of the hearing of his proposal to permit him to study the options available to him and amend his application. With the possibility of an amended application and site plan being presented, staff sees no purpose in commenting on an application which may be changed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant's representative, McGetrick Engineering, submitted a letter on March 1, 1996, asking that the item be deferred until the April 25 Subdivision hearing. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the applicant was making adjustments in the site layout in light of staff comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and wished time to hold meetings with the area land owners. Staff explained that, because of the numerous deficiencies in the submittal and the re -design discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff had deferred preparing a staff report/write-up on the issue. Staff recommended that the revised site plan, with all required information, be submitted to staff by the March 18th. filing date, proceed through the review March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6099 process as a new application, be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on April 4th., and be hearing on the next regular Subdivision hearing of April 25, 1996. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. Pa March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-2349-A NAME: VALLEY HEIGHTS APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of Cantrell Rd., across from the Bryant St. intersection, at 6900 Cantrell Rd. DEVELOPER: Charles A. Wilson THE WISLON CO. 1501 S. Main St., Suite 114 Little Rock, AR 72202 376-7116 AREA: 4.97 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-5; R-6; & C-3 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: West Little Rock (3) CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The site plan, as shown (excluding the two proposed 4-unit "Phase II" apartment buildings) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 1, 1971. At that time, the area proposed to be occupied by the two apartment buildings contained in this application was the location of tennis courts (which have been removed). The conditions imposed at the time of the 1971 approval were that access to Darby Place be prohibited and that proper screening of the site form the single-family residences to the north be provided. At that time, approval was granted for the four 8-unit buildings, the 10-unit townhouse building, a 12-story, 117-unit apartment building, the leasing office building, and the shopping center building. Parking for 160 vehicles was provided for the 159 dwelling units, the office, and the shopping center building. During the intervening years, only the four 8-unit apartment buildings, the 10-unit townhouse building, and the leasing office building have been developed, for a total of 42 dwelling units and a 1,160 square foot office. The high rise and shopping center building have not been developed. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The addition of two 4-unit apartment units to the site is proposed. The dwelling units are to be 3-bedroom units; the March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO Z-2349-A buildings are to be two-story. Each dwelling unit is to be approximately 1,200 square feet. The proposed location is the area formerly occupied by tennis courts, with the north wall of the buildings lining up with the four 8-unit apartment buildings to the west. No additional parking is proposed; no additional changes in the site is proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the current location of the Valley Heights Apartments, formerly known as the English Village Apartments. Only 42 of the originally approved dwelling units have been built; the 117-unit high rise apartment building and the shopping center building have not been developed. Parking for 160 vehicles is located on the site. The "pad" for the proposed buildings is the location of the tennis courts, which have been removed. The site includes C-3 zoning (where the shopping center building were to have been located), R-6 (where the high rise was to have been located, including the developed parking areas), and R-5 (the area along the north and east boundaries of the tract, where the apartments were developed). Property to the northeast is zoned R-2; to the northwest, OS. Property to the east is zoned R-4 and R-5. Property to the west is zoned R-5 and C-3. Property across Cantrell Rd. to the south is zoned C-3. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: Right-of-way along Cantrell Rd. must be dedicated to bring the dedication up to 55 feet from the centerline of Cantrell Rd. A 6 foot sidewalk at the back of the curb, with appropriate handicap ramps, must be construct along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. Stormwater detention and erosion control measures will be required. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that the Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether an additional private or public fire hydrant is required. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-2349-A Water Works should be contacted regarding the meter location(s). Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that construction of the apartment buildings will required the developer to relocate the existing sewer main. The Utility should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that a 15 foot easement is needed around the entire perimeter of the property. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement around almost the entire perimeter (except for the southeast portion abutting the adjacent multi -family use, and the street frontage on Cantrell Rd.). Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department will require fire hydrant locations to be show. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments include: Sec. 36-502 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multi -family uses, plus one space per 400 square feet of office space. The existing 42 dwelling units, plus the new 8 units, for a total of fifty dewing units, will require 75 parking spaces. The 1,160 square foot office building requires 3 parking spaces. A total of 78 parking spaces is required; 160 is provided. With additional right-of-way along Cantrell Rd. being required; with the current Landscape Ordinance provisions which would be imposed; and, with the availability of 82 of the 160 parking spaces for any additional development, development of a 117-unit high rise and a commercial center cannot be anticipated. Any further development of the site must be reviewed by the Planning Commission; the previously approved "Phase III" development (to include the high rise and commercial center) cannot be undertaken under the previous, 1971, approval. Sec. 31-13 states: "...developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings... shall be subject to the provisions of this section." The section requires site plan review by the Planning Commission for such developments. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2349-A The Plans Review Specialist comments that the required land use buffer between the multi -family use area and the single-family area to the north and northeast must be provided. The land use buffer may be either a 6 foot high "good neighbor" privacy fence, or be approved plantings. E. ANALYSIS• The five acre site, as developed and proposed, has only 50 dwelling units on it, with more than sufficient parking. The proposed buildings align with the existing buildings, providing a 30 foot setback from the north property line. The abutting single-family property to the north is significantly higher than the multi -family area, and with proper land use buffering from the single-family residential uses to the north, conflict between the two uses should not be of concern. In the original 1971 approval record, there is discussion about a privacy fence which would be provided along the north property line. This fence which was agreed to by the developer should be required to be provided, if not in place, and be kept in repair. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) The applicant was present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the proposal and reviewed with the Committee members the submitted site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments, including the need for providing any additional required right-of-way along Cantrell Rd. and a sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed the concerns contained in the discussion outline, and specifically addressed the land use buffer requirements along the north property line. Staff commented that the original approval for the high rise and commercial center would not still be valid; that there are current ordinance requirements which would affect the design and development requirements. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-2349-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the concerns raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting, but indicated that there was still a question regarding the Public Works requirement for a sidewalk to be constructed along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. Staff reported that one phone call had been received from an abutting property owner in objection to the proposed construction of the additional buildings. Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant constructing the required sidewalk. Mr. Charles Wilson, the applicant, was present. Mr. Wilson reported that the required sidewalk would be constructed. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan, and the site plan was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. 6i March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-3689-G NAME: HEALTH SOURCE, CORPORATE HILL SUBDIVISION -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of Corporate Hill Dr. cul-de-sac, approximately 0.3 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Daryl Coker Pat McGetrick HEALTH SOURCE, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 333 Executive Ct. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 227-7222 223-9900 AREA: 1.9 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• 0-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: Rodney Parham (2) CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Parking Proposed is a 105-space parking lot, occupying approximately 1 acre of a 1.9 acre lot in the Corporate Hill Subdivision. No building development is associated with the request; the parking lot is to provide additional parking for the Health Source offices located on the abutting lot to the east in the Executive Park Addition. Access to the new parking area to be provided by a 27 foot wide drive extending from the current Health Source drive off Executive Court onto the Corporate Hill Subdivision lot. No access from the Corporate Hill Subdivision parking lot is proposed to Corporate Hill Dr. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: Planning Commission approval is requested for a site plan for a parking lot on an 0-2 zoned lot. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-G B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot in the Corporate Hill Subdivision is vacant and undeveloped. Both abutting lots in the Corporate Hill Subdivision are developed. The abutting lot to the west, in the Executive Park Addition, is the location of the applicant's current offices and existing parking area. The site is zoned 0-2, as is all other property in the Corporate Hill Subdivision to the south, east, and north. The property in the Executive Park Addition to the west is zoned O-3. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Pubic Works staff comments include: An APDC&E permit and a site grading and excavation permit form the City will be required to be obtained prior to beginning work. An SFHA development permit is required. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Access to the parking lot must be by way of a minimum 27 foot wide drive, with a sidewalk to be constructed along at least one side of the drive. The center aisle must be a minimum of 24 feet in width. The planned turn -out for a future extension must be a minimum of 27 feet in width. Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that there was no objection to the proposed project from the Utility, but notes that there is an acreage charge of $150 per acre which is applicable in this area, should water service be needed. Little Rock Waste Water Utility comments that sewer service is available to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that a 15 foot easement is needed around the entire perimeter of the property. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement around the entire perimeter (except for the street frontage). Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. K March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3689-G The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Neighborhoods and Planing staff comments include: Sec. 36-126 thru Sec. 36-127 require Planning Commission review and approval for development of sites in, among others, 0-2 zoned properties. The development of the parking facility on the 0-2 zoned lot, is, therefore, required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Plans Review Specialist notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Ordinance requirements. E. ANALYSIS• There are no issues to be resolved. The parking lot design is in conformance with all applicable requirements. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and reviewed with the Committee members the proposed site plan. The Public Works staff person, David Scherer, reviewed the Public Works comments. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the discussion outline and discussed the concerns raised. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reported that, eventually, a new office building was anticipated to be built on the subject lot, and that the parking lot being built would serve the future building. Staff pointed out that, when access to the future building is gained from Corporate Hill Dr., tying the subject parking lot into Corporate Hill Dr., Corporate Hill Dr. would be tied into Executive Court by way of the drive-thru. Staff pointed out that this was a similar situation to the drive-thru created when the abutting lots to the north were developed. The Committee members and the Neighborhoods and Planning staff persons asked that the applicant make provisions to limit access across the vacant portion of the lot onto Corporate Hill Dr., not permitting vehicle access on the unpaved "trail" or across the lot. Mr. McGetrick responded that this concern would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3689-G PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the concerns and issues raised and discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff reported that there are no land use issues in this application and that staff had received no communications from area property owners or residents concerning this issue. Staff recommends approval of the site plan. The approval of the site plan was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 4 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 10 FILE NO.: Z-5269-A LOCATION: Faith Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit 10329 Mann Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Shot's Ent., Inc./ Faith Baptist Church by Rev. Charles Trull PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the following on this R-2 zoned, 1.85 acre site: 1) Construction of a Family Life Center and parking lot. 2) Placement of a double -wide manufactured home to serve as a parsonage. 3) Use of the existing 2-story house as Sunday School class rooms. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the south side of Mann Road, approximately 130± feet east of Leah Lane. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is abutted by residential uses located to the east, the existing Faith Baptist Church and American Legion Post to the west, and vacant land located to the south. The vacant land to the south is an existing parking lot for the Little Oaks Ball Park which is located immediately east. The Missouri -Pacific Railroad right-of-way is located north of this site, across Mann Road. Other uses and zoning in this general area include a mixture of office, commercial and industrial, as well as single-family residences. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5269-A This proposal should have little impact on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 27 foot wide drive from Mann Road. The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. 4. Screenina and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Engineer Comments: Mann Road is a rural 23 foot pavement section with open ditches and no sidewalks. Leah Lane is an 18 foot chipseal with open ditches. Right-of-way cannot be determined from survey submitted. However, Mann Road is a Collector and should have 60 feet of ROW and a 36 foot pavement with sidewalk. Submit Plans for 1/2 street widening with construction permit request. The Original City of Mabelvale Platted in Book 1 sheet 151 indicates a "T" alley in Block 31 and 32 and a 60 foot ROW between the two blocks. The planned Family Life Center lies over the street ROW and the Parsonage lies over East 2nd Street (Woodman Street extension) ROW. These ROW issues must be considered before the Conditional Use Permit. The City Clerk's office does not have a record of these platted streets and alleys being closed. There exists the normal grading permit, stormwater detention, concrete apron, and other standards that will apply at the time of construction permitting. Traffic engineering prefers a second entrance to facility with access to Leah Lane. 6. Utility Comments: AP&L - Existing facilities require a 20 foot easement across the northwest corner of the property. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the phased construction of a Family Life Center E March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5269-A with parking lot and the placement of a 28 X 80 foot double -wide manufactured home, to serve as a parsonage, on this R-2 zoned 1.85 acre site. Phase I will consist of the placement of the double -wide manufactured home and the use of the existing 2-story house as Sunday School classrooms. Construction of the Family Life Center building will be Phase II, and Phase III will be construction of the parking lot. The applicant proposes to use the existing gravel driveway on this site until the paved parking area is constructed. The number of existing parking spaces on the adjacent Faith Baptist Church site comply with ordinance requirements based on the seating capacity in the church's sanctuary. Therefore, no additional parking spaces will be required by ordinance with this proposed use. The site also contains four existing mobile homes. These mobile homes will be removed from the site when Phase I of this development is initiated. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility Comments BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Two persons were present, representing Faith Baptist Church and the application. David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. He gave a detailed description of the right- of-way issues that are involved with this project. There was a discussion between the Committee and the applicants regarding the right-of-way issues. It was recommended by the Committee that the applicant work through an abstract company and determine the status of the rights - of -way which are adjacent to or running through this property. Staff had no additional comments. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5269-A The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 11 FILE NO.: Z-5524-E NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Smith - Conditional Use Permit 401 S. Bowman Road Willis Smith and Bek Raiser/ Ralph Bozeman A conditional use permit is requested to allow a drycleaners on this C-1 zoned site. The proposed site is located on the east side of Bowman Road, approximately 600 feet north of Chenal Parkway. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located in a narrow strip of land on the east side of Bowman Road which serves as a buffer between the intense commercial development on the west side of Bowman Road and the single family residential neighborhood located to the east. At the time this property was rezoned from 0-3 to C-1 in 1993, it was envisioned to be used for a small scale, low intensity commercial use which would provide a transition to single family from the larger more car -oriented commercial area. Staff feels that this proposed use should provide an appropriate transition from the single family residential to the east to the larger more car -oriented commercial uses to the west. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 40 foot wide drive from Bowman Road. The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. 4. Screening and Buffers: A 4 foot wide landscape strip is required by the Landscape Ordinance between the proposed eastern March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5524-E F`F M parking area and fence. Because of the utility easement within the eastern buffer it is recommended that evergreen shrubs with the ability to grow to at least 12 feet be planted every 5 feet to help soften the retainer wall and fence from the residential property to the east. The dumpster must be enclosed on three sides with an 8 foot high opaque wood fence or wall. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. City Engineer Comments: Master Street plan ROW (5 feet additional) was waived by ordinance 16, 149. Stormwater detention applies to this site. A grading permit will be required. Care should be taken during construction to prevent runoff of soils onto adjacent properties, offsite mitigation will be required. Traffic Engineering recommends a widening of the drive on the north side of building to 18 feet. Reduce driveway width to 27 feet. There does not exist space for 3 lane stacking, and this parcel does not warrant a 40 foot drive normally reserved for semi -truck operations. Rear retaining wall is to be 9 feet above existing grade. Utility Comments: Southwestern Bell - a 5 foot utility easement required along the east property line. Little Rock Water Works - The 8" water main and abandoned R/W of Birchwood Dr. (retained as a utility easement) should be shown. This main may conflict with the proposed sewer main to the east. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow a dry-cleaning business on this C-1 zoned property. The applicant proposes to construct a 60 X 100 foot building on this site. The drycleaners will utilize 4,020 space feet of the building, with the remaining 1,980 square feet being devoted to a permitted C-1 use. The contours on the site will require the construction of a retaining wall offset from the northeast corner of the site. This wall will be offset from the east property line by ten feet and from the north property line by six feet. At the corner, which will be the 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5524-E highest point, the wall will be nine feet above the natural grade and be built level in both directions. On the east side, the retaining wall will run approximately 100 feet before going back to natural grade. On the north side, it will extend to near the west property line at which point it will be approximately 30 inches tall and then turn south for about 15 feet going back into the natural grade. On the east side of the property, a six foot wood privacy fence will be built on top of the retaining wall and extend across the entire width of the property. There will be no outside speakers installed on this site and the building will have no doors or windows on the east side. The site lighting will be low-level and directed away from the residential property to the east and the servicing of the dumpster will be during daylight hours only. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility Comments 4. The lighting of this site is to be low-level and directed away from the residential property to the east. 5. Servicing of the dumpster to be during daylight hours only. 6. There will be no outside speakers installed on this site. 7. The building will have no doors or windows on the east side. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this application, primarily the type of use proposed. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: it (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5524-E David Scherer, of Public Works, offered a brief discussion of the size of the driveway, the widening of the driveway on the north side of the building, and the retaining wall height. It was recommended that the driveway on the north side be widened to allow for an additional lane of traffic to circle the building other than just the one lane at the pick-up window. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, briefly discussed his comments with the Committee. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The applicant, Ralph Bozeman, was present. There were several objectors present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the agenda "staff recommendation". Ralph Bozeman addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of his proposal. Havis Jacks spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he was opposed to the parking spaces behind the building and the drive -up window on the north side of the building. He also stated opposition to the type of use proposed. He stated that the chemicals used in dry-cleaning could be hazardous. Mr. Jacks also stated that he had a problem with the retaining wall and buffer area as shown on the site plan. Brenda Fontenot also spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that water runoff would be a problem. She also stated that she was opposed to the parking area behind the building. David Scherer, of Public works, stated that stormwater detention would be required and that no excess water would be directed toward the residences to the east. Ralph Bozeman commented on the slope of the property. He stated that a retaining wall along the east and north property lines would be necessary with any construction on this site. Commissioner Ball commented on the drive -up window. Mr. Bozeman explained that it was not a window, but a drive - up door where customers would be handed their dry-cleaning. 4 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5524-E Floyd Boyd spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that the drive -up window, the parking behind the building and the possible water run-off were his major concerns. Jeff Shaneyfelt, proposed owner of the property, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the dumpster location had been moved away from the residences. He also stated that he had proposed to the neighbors to make the retaining wall more attractive by using brick. He also stated that the drive -up door was a convenience he needed to provide to his customers. Commissioner Lichty asked about the dry-cleaning process. Mr. Shaneyfelt stated that it was a safe process. Commissioner McCarthy asked about the PCD zoned property to the north and what types of drives and parking areas were allowed. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, addressed this issue and stated that no drives or parking were allowed behind the building. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the conditions noted in the "staff recommendation". The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 5 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6096 LOCATION: Moffett - Conditional Use Permit 15717 Taylor Loop Road OWNER/APPLICANT: James A Penny/Dorothy B. Moffett PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a private pre-school on this R-2 zoned site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located on the south side of Taylor Loop Road, just east of Montgomery Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This site is located within the Pennwyck Subdivision, and is surrounded by single family residential zoning. The Central Baptist Church and school are located two blocks to the east of this property. This proposed use should not have an adverse affect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. One access point from Taylor Loop Road is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 6 foot high opaque screen either a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings is required to screen this site from the residential properties to the north, south, east and west. In addition to the screening and unless otherwise present trees with an average spacing of 40 feet and shrubs with an average spacing of 10 feet will be required around the perimeter of the site. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION •2M Landscaping for vehicular use areas will have to be in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. 5. City Engineer Comments: Stormwater detention will require redesign due to change in runoff from designed facilities for the residential subdivision and this commercial use. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Fire Department: The drive must be at least 20 feet wide. Little Rock Wastewater Utility: The sewer main extension required to service property has not been accepted at this time. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting A conditional use permit for a Montessori pre-primary elementary school to be located in the Pennwyck Subdivision, lots eight and nine, which is zoned R-2. This structure will be the first structure built in Pennwyck. Vacant lots are to the east, west, and south. The Central Baptist Church and school are located two blocks further east. A maximum enrollment of thirty students is anticipated ranging in ages from three to six years. The hours of operation will be primarily from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. However, some children will be present to 2:15 p.m. and fewer still might remain till 5:00 p.m., depending on parental need. The applicant is proposing construction of a 27 X 60 foot building, with a Williamsburg exterior and extensive landscaping. This should prove consistent with future Pennwyck homes. There will be a paved parking area on the north side of the building and a playground area in the rear yard. There will be 6 foot privacy fencing around the perimeter of the site. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6096 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 4. These lots must be final platted prior to application for building permit. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Dorothy Moffett was present, representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the Committee with a revised site plan, stating that it had been reviewed and approved by Bill Henry of Traffic Engineering. David Scherer, of Public works, stated that the revised site plan is a positive change from the original site plan. Mrs. Moffett offered the Committee a brief description of the proposed use, including the type of school and number and age range of the students. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that areas set aside for buffers and landscaping (on the revised plan) meet ordinance requirements. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. There was one objector present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the agenda "staff recommendation". He stated that one letter of opposition had been received by staff. Dorothy Moffett addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of her proposal. Raymond Sanford spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that the increased traffic was his main concern. Mrs. Moffett explained to the Commission how the exterior of the structure would look. She stated that it would look like a house. Commissioner Lichty asked Mrs. Moffett how she found the land. Mr. Moffett stated that she noticed the real estate sign for Pennwyck Subdivision and contacted the land owner. W March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6096 Commissioner Brandon asked what a Montessori school was. Mrs. Moffett gave a brief description of the Montessori School. Commissioner Hawn asked about the traffic counts on Taylor Loop Road. David Scherer, of Public works, addressed the Master Street Plan requirements. Commissioner Putnam asked what type of traffic issues were involved. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that this proposed use would not generate a significant amount of traffic. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the conditions noted in the agenda "staff recommendation". The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 13 FILE NO.: Z-6097 LOCATION: Evans - Conditional Use Permit 14104 Taylor Loop Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. William McDonald Dorothy Daniel & Lorene Nelson/ James and Debra Evans PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a private pre- school/elementary school on this R-2 zoned site. The applicants are also requesting a waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement (Section 36-523) of a screening fence along the south property line of the school property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located on the west side of Taylor Loop Road, approximately 350 feet south of Cantrell Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is abutted by a Harvest Foods Store to the west and the Harvest Foods access driveway to the north. Single family residences are located to the south of this site and also to the east, across Taylor Loop Road. This proposed use should not have an adverse affect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. Two, one-way, access points from Taylor Loop Road are proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers: A 6 foot wide landscape strip (4 feet minimum with transfer) will be required north at the proposed parking area by the Landscape Ordinance. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6097 A 6 feet high opaque screen is required along the south property line. The trash container must be enclosed on three sides with an 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Engineer Comments: The existing street is a 20 foot asphalt street. Applicant will be required to construct 1/2 of a minor arterial street. Full 1/2 reconstruction will be required, the existing street does not conform to CLR arterial standards. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. This site has less than 300 feet of frontage and thus is only permitted one access point. Driveways are to be 25 feet from edge of drive to property lines. Stormwater detention analysis will be required. Construction of a sidewalk will be required. A grading permit is required prior to start of construction. Traffic Engineering strongly recommends denial. If the ordinance is waived and this driveway arrangement is allowed, with the limited stacking space cars will most likely be stacked out onto Taylor Loop and create blockage to the Harvest Foods drive. The north drive is too close to the Harvest Foods entry. Should be 100 feet from this intersection. This drive creates a commercial (collector) intersection with a minor arterial. 6. utility and Fire Department Comments: Fire Department: The height of the canopy must be at least 15 feet. The drives between parking spaces must be at least 20 feet wide. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow a private school at 14104 Taylor Loop Road and Lots 1 and 2 of the Phillips Subdivision, which are zoned R-2. They are proposing to build and operate a Montessori pre-school and elementary that will provide care and education for children ranging in age from eighteen months to twelve years (toddler through sixth grade). F, March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6097 The applicants are proposing to build a 14,000 square foot facility, with a maximum enrollment of 120 students. The pre-school will employ approximately 10 people, and the elementary will have two classrooms and four employees. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicants also intend to purchase the residence immediately south of this property (located at 14116 Taylor Loop Road) where they will reside. Because of this, the applicants are requesting a waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of a screening fence along the south property line of the school property. This residential lot has an existing wood privacy fence along its south property line adjacent to the Westchester Neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions:' 1. Compliance with the City°s Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineers Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 4. Staff recommends approval of the request for waiver from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of a screening fence along the south property line of the school property, based on the fact that the owners of the school property will also own and reside on the residential lot south of the school property. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) James and Debra Evans were present, representing the application. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the applicant and Committee. He discussed the dedication of right-of-way and the required street improvements to Taylor Loop Road. He also discussed the driveway arrangement, with limited stacking space and stated that a revised site plan would need to be designed to satisfy these needs. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6097 Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, reviewed his comments with the committee and the applicant. The applicants stated that a revised site plan would be designed and presented to the Planning Staff. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The applicant, James Evans, was present. There were several objectors present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the agenda "staff recommendation". He stated that a petition and several letters of opposition have been received by staff. James Evans addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of his proposal. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the staff would support a deferral of the screening fence requirement until such a time that the owner of the school vacates or sells the residence immediately south of the school property and that the screening fence on the south side of the residence be maintained. Commissioner McCarthy asked what the age group of the students would be. Mr. Evans stated that the students would range in age from 18 months to 6 years old for the first five years and then gradually go up to age 12 (sixth grade). Commissioner Brandon asked if this plan met all landscaping requirements. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that the revised site plan meets ordinance requirements regarding buffers and landscaping. Commissioner Lichty asked about the traffic count on Taylor Loop Road and what is considered high volume. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that Taylor Loop Road could handle 12,000 cars per day when widened. Mary Harrison spoke in opposition to this application. She stated that the increased traffic would be her main concern. [l March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6097 Max Mull also spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that he felt this was not a good location for a school. He stated that the proposed school would lower property values in the area and would increase traffic on Taylor Loop Road. He made reference to Pulaski Academy and their traffic problem and presented photos to the Commission. Commissioner Ball made reference to the residence between the school property and Mr. Mull's residence. He stated that he felt it would provide a buffer between the school and Westchester Neighborhood. Jim Lawson made reference to the City's Future Land Use Plan which was adopted in 1980, before the Westchester Subdivision was built. He stated that the proposed school site was shown on the future land use plan as Transition Zone. commissioner Brandon asked what the applicant would do if he wanted more than 120 students. Jim Lawson stated that the conditional use permit would limit the applicant to 120 students. Commissioner Hawn asked how close Mr. Mull's house is to the proposed school property. Mr. Mull stated that there is one residence between the school and his property. Jim Lawson restated the staff's position on the deferral of the screening fence. He stated that if the owner of the school vacates or sells the residence immediately south of the school then a screening fence would need to be built between it and the school property. Also, the fence which is currently in place between this residential lot and the Westchester Neighborhood will be maintained. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the conditions noted by staff. Dan Lancaster approached the podium and spoke in opposition to the application. He referenced Pulaski Academy and the traffic problems on Hinson and Napa Valley Drive. Commissioner Ball stated that the overall site plan appears to be a good plan. Mr. Mull made reference to the petition in opposition to the application and the number of names on the petition. Mr. Lancaster asked about the size of Taylor Loop Road and stated traffic concerns. 5 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6097 David Scherer stated that the Master Street Plan shows Taylor Loop to be a minor arterial and would be four lanes with a center turn lane when built to the Master Street Plan requirements. Commissioner Ball asked when the construction of Taylor Loop would take place. David Scherer stated that the 1988 Bond issue included this street, but he was not sure of a time frame for construction of improvements. Commissioner Putnam asked if the school would have to provide street improvements. Mr. Scherer stated that they would. Commissioner Hawn asked if the revised site plan was approved by Traffic Engineering. Mr. Scherer stated that it was. There was a brief discussion regarding the number of parking spaces that the applicant is proposing. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that the applicant would be required twenty-four parking spaces by the Zoning Ordinance based on the number of students and the number of teachers and classrooms. He stated that the applicant was proposing in excess of the required twenty- four spaces. Chairman Woods stated that there was a motion on the floor. The motion was passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner Daniel) and 1 open position. M March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 14 FILE NO.: 5-1063 NAME: Mabelvale Town Plat - Reduce to acreage, close street and alley. LOCATION: North side of the 10100 Block of Mabelvale West Road REQUEST: To return to acreage a portion of the original plat of Mabelvale and exclusive abandonment of adjacent street and alley. OWNER/APPLICANT• ADDRESS• TELEPHONE: REOUEST: Robert Ashcraft 13304 Sardis Road Mabelvale, AR 455-1889 The applicant proposes to reduce part of the Mabelvale Town platted land to acreage. This conversion will include Lots 1-12, Block 11 and Lots 4-9, Block 12 of the Original Plat of Mabelvale. Also included in this request is the exclusive abandonment of the platted street lying between Blocks 11 and 12 and the alleys within Block 11 and the western half of Block 12. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: The Plat does not indicate right-of-way dedicated with zoning change. The floodplain information is incorrect. There exists ditches that traverse the property. When development occurs, drainage easements will be required to insure passage of the offsite stormwater. However, these locations can be defined at a later date. The existing paper platted rights -of -way do not need to remain drainage easements. Utilities: AP&L -- No objection Southwestern Bell -- No objection ARKLA -- No objection Little Rock Water Works -- No objection - A water main extension will be required to serve this property. Little Rock Wastewater -- No objection March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1063 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. There was no additional discussion or comments by staff or committee. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 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. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. E March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: G-23-246 Name: Mason Street and Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: 11,000 Block of Kanis Road - North Side Owner/Apmlicant: Robert M. Brown, Applicant Reauest: To abandon that portion of Mason Street and Hardin Road located at Kanis Road, running North 504± feet and 417± feet respectively, for use as utility easement areas. Mason Street will be maintained as a private drive for access to adjacent properties to the east. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way The Public Works response depends on the adjacent property owners responses. Therefore, Public works response is deferred until further information is provided. There do exist issues involving access to existing building and prescriptive rights by the users of these right-of-ways. Legal access has to be provided to each separate parcel. As the proposal stands, access to the rear parcels within this ownership (Tract 51 and 52) would require access. 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 The Director of Public Works agreed to a 6 months deferral of the dedication of right-of-way for these two streets at the time of rezoning. This was to allow the applicant time to investigate the possibility of closing these right-of-ways. March 14, 1996 ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246 Required right-of-way for Kanis Road was dedicated at the time of rezoning. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Mason Street is a narrow drive, which is used to access two residences and a salvage yard business to the east. Hardin Road is vacant and undeveloped. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the areas of this abandonment will be used as utility easement areas. Mason Street will be maintained as a private drive for access to the eastern properties. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Mason Street: Surrounding uses include two single family residential structures and a salvage yard to the east, which gain access from Mason Street. There are three single family residences to the west, all of which are accessed from Kanis Road. Hardin Road: Surrounding uses include the same three single family residential structures to the east and single-family residential uses to the west, all of which gain access from Kanis Road. Abandoning these rights -of -way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. 8 Effect on Public Services or utilities Fire Department - Mason Street needs to remain open to provide access to properties on the east side. AP&L - Retain the rights -of -way for easements (egress and ingress). Southwestern Bell - retain the rights -of -way for utility easements. ARKLA - No objection Little Rock Water Works - No objection Little Rock Wastewater - Retain the rights -of -way for utility easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-246 Mason Street: Once abandoned, the area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the owners of Tracts 50, 51, 62 and 63 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock. Hardin Street: Once abandoned, the area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the owners of Tracts 52, 53, 60 and 61 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Mason Street being maintained as a private drive for access to adjacent properties to the east. 2. The areas of this abandonment being retained as utility easements. 3. Tracts 51, 52, 61 and 62 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock being treated as a single piece of property for the purpose of gaining access from Kanis Road. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, explained to the Committee that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission agenda and that this item would be submitted to the Subdivision Committee for comments on April 4, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission Agenda. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. 3 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-246 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. 4 March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 16 FILE NO.: G-23-247 Name: Location: Owner/Applicant_: Recruest STAFF REVIEW: "Y" Street Right -of -Way Abandonment Located between Block 17 and Block 24, Park View Addition to the City of Little Rock (between Taylor and Filmore Streets). Christopher J. Bequette To abandon that portion of "Y" Street lying between Block 17 and Block 24, Park View Addition to the City of Little Rock for private use by adjacent property owners. 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way There is no public need for this right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adlacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The proposed area of abandonment is undeveloped, and is partly overgrown with trees and brush. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be incorporated into the adjacent residential properties for private use by the adjacent property owners. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-247 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The surrounding uses are exclusively single family residential. Abandoning this right-of-way should have no effect on the neighborhood. 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. S Effect on Public Services or Utilities AP&L - Retain a 30 foot utility, ingress and egress easement, 15 feet on either side of centerline of existing powerline. Southwestern Bell - No objection ARKLA - No objection Little Rock Water Works - No objection Little Rock Wastewater - Retain the right-of-way for utility easement. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. Once abandoned, the area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the owners of Lots 1 and 12, Block 24 and Lots 6 and 7, Block 17 of the Park View Addition to the City of Little Rock. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this right-of-way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the area of this abandonment being retained as a utility easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. 2 March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-247 There was no additional discussion or comments by staff or Committee. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this right- of-way abandonment, subject to the area of the proposed abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. 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. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. c March 14, 1996 ITEM NO • 17 FILE NO.: G-23-248 Location: Owner/Applicant: Rectuest : STAFF REVIEW: Exclusive Alley Abandonment Located within Block 88, Original City of Little Rock (between West 8th and West 9th Streets) Phyllis Glaze, Applicant To abandon the north -south 20 feet wide alley in Block 88, Original City of Little Rock for the construction of a medical clinic and parking lot. 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way There is no public need for this alley right-of-way. 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 With construction of this block: Dedicate 20 foot corner radial areas at intersections. Dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Louisiana Street. Master Street Plan calls for 80 feet right-of-way or an additional 10 feet at the intersection of Louisiana with 8th and 9th Streets, however, Public Works will not request added lanes. Thus, this additional turn lane right-of-way will not be required. Reference Ordinance 15,964 dated November 20, 1990. Reconstruction of the curb radii at intersections to 31.5 foot radius will be required. All sidewalks will be upgraded to minimum 5 feet with appropriate ramps. Reconstruction of curbs to CLR standards may be required where deficient. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-248 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The north -south alley is paved and is currently being used as a right-of-way. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be incorporated into the adjacent property for the construction of a medical clinic and parking lot. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The area contains a variety of office and commercial uses and parking lots. Abandoning this alley right-of-way should have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the Downtown Neighborhood Association have been notified of the public hearing. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities AP&L - No objection. However, the parties requesting closure will be required to reimburse AP&L for the cost of relocating the facilities located in the alley closure. Southwestern Bell - No objection ARKLA - No objection Little Rock Water Works - No objection Little Rock Wastewater - No objection 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. The area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the four adjacent property owners. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the public welfare and safety. 2 March 14, 1996 s SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO • G-23-248 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive abandonment of this alley right-of-way. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments regarding right-of-way dedication and street improvements which will be required when construction permits are obtained for this block. There was no additional discussion or comments by staff or committee. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 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. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. N MJ 1111111111 mumommunummi MEMENNOMMEN mommummommal Immummol3mmal EMEMEMEMEN NENJEENUMMUME ommummuma0d MEMEN®.....a MOMOOMUDOOD ©ummu ummum0i ■EMOMMEEM■m omm!��M ■OM■■N ■■■IMEN Emom 0moi0000000ml mmmummummmul MENOMMUMMEN mummummumm00 EMI■EMEMEMEM■ UNINUMNIMEN 0 ORNMENIMMENUM MUMMEME0E000 mummummomm00 00��00���0©ova c����00r�0e�0�0 • • �1 1 1 CD 0 Q i Fa— Cn Co z w cn m Q w Q z w March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.