Loading...
pc_04 25 1996subI. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD APRIL 25, 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 Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed by vote 10 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent.. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Ron Woods, Chairperson Suzanne McCarthy Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Pam Adcock Sissi Brandon Larry Lichty Herb Hawn Hugh Earnest Doyle Daniel Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA APRIL 25, 1996 I, DEFERRED ITEMS; A. Trammell 5323 Baseline Rd. -- Short -Form PCD (Z-4855-B) B. East side of Cooper Orbit Rd., north of Spring Valley Manor, rezoning from R-2 to MF-18 (Z-6083) C. Whispering Pines Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5-643-B) D. Mears Mini -Warehouse -- Lung -Form PD-C (Z-4731-A) E. Bentley Acres -- Long -Form PD-R (Z-6099) F. Faith Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5269-A) G. Mason St. and Hardin Rd. -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-246) H. River Market Design Overlay District II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision -- Revised Preliminary Plat (5-45-A-21) 2. United Properties Subdivision, Lots 1R and 2 --- Preliminary Plat (5-954-A) 3. Arkansas Systems Office Park --- Revised Preliminary Plat (5-1073-A) 4. Zoel Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5-1094) 5. Capitol Lakes Estates -- Preliminary Plat (5-1100) III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 6. Otter Creek Village Mini -Warehouses Short -Form PD-C (Z-3454-E) 7. Kanis Mini -Storage -- Amended Short -Form PD-C (Z-4653--C) 8. United Properties Subdivision, Lot 2 -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-4653-D) Agenda, Page 2 IV, SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 9. Candlewood Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review (5-548-I) 10. Otter Creek Village -- Revised Zoning Site Plan Review (Z-3454-F) V . CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 11. Alltel, 1515 Market St. -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-4009-A) 12. Southwest Christian Academy -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5786-A) 13. Payne Chapel -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6103) 14. Brown -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6111 15. Marriott -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6113--A) 16. Bethel Primitive Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6114) 17. AT&T, 7626 Cantrell Rd. -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6116) 1.8. Sprint Spectrum, I--30 Site --- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6117) 19. Sprint Spectrum, Jackson Reservoir Site -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6118) 20. Smith -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6119) VI. REZONINGS• 21. The North 25 feet of Lot 8 and the South 12.5 feet of Lot 9, Block 5, Pettefer's Addition (2616 S. Commerce St.) (Z-6lo9) -- Rezoning from R-3 to o-1. 22. Part of the SE V4, SW Ys, Section 32, T-1-N, R-12•-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas (3818 Baseline Rd.) (Z-6110) -- Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3. 23. Part of the W %, NW 1/4, NW ',4, Section 10, T-1-N, R-13-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas (1401 S. Shackleford Rd,) (Z-6113) -- Rezoning from 0-3 to 0-2. 24. Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, Riffel and Rhoton's Forest. Park Highland Addition (1818 and 1824 Georgia Ave,) (Z-6112) -- Rezoning from R-2 to R-5. Agenda, Page 3 REZONINGS CQNTINUED: 25. Part of the S % of the NK V4, Section 7, T-1-N, R-13-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas (the west side of Cooper orbit Rd., north of Spring Valley Manor) (Z-6120) -- Rezoning from R--2 to MF-12. VII. 9PECIAL USE PERMIT: 26. Kierman -- Special Use Permit (Z-6115) VIII. OTHER MATTERS: 27. Clara Combs -- Extension of Subdivision Ordinance Waiver (5-936) 28. Revocation of: Kimball & Bodeman Addition -- Short -Form PRD (Z-3946-A) 29 _ Revocation of: Bunnell's -- Short --Form PCD (Z-4080-A) 30. Revocation of various PUD's which have failed to comply with the requirement that final development plans be submitted within three (3) years from the date of their approval by the Planning Commission: a) Owens -- Short -Form PCD (Z-3918-B) b) Meadowpark village --- Long -Form PRD (Z-4853) c) McGee -- Short -Form PRD (Z-4415) d) Markham Center -- Short -Form PCD (Z-1807-B) e) Flower Shop -- Short -Form PCD (Z-5310) f) Healthy Lawns and Shrubs -- Short -Form PCD (Z-3969-A) April 25, 1996 ITEM D • A FILE NO.• Z-4 -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 TRAME'LL & CO. 7009 Geyer Springs Rd. Little Rock, AR 72209 568-5652 AREA• 0.71 ACRES E I EE : Troy D. Laha ENGINEERS, INC. P. O. Box 190251 Little Rock, AR 72219-0251 565-7384 NUMBER OF LQTS: 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- April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION _ITEM NO. A (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/RE VEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. B. EXISTING CONDITI-QNS: 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 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVI S I QN ITEM Np,_. A (Cont.) F_.., FILE „NO • Z-485 -BB D. 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/LEGALITECHNICAL/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 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM A(Cont.FILE NO.: Z--48 -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 staffs 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 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-485 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 RECOMMENDATIQNS : 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. STAFF PRATE: The applicant submitted a revised, site plan which addresses all Planning and Public Works staff concerns. The second drive approach off Baseline was removed; the internal driveways were re -designed to provide required off-street parking, adequate parking, to meet ordinance requirements was provided; the landscaping requirements were provided for; land use buffers were provided; etc. Staff recommends approval of the PCD. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. The use issues have been clarified; the site plan has been revised to conform to 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIV1910 ITEM NC.;,_ A [Gont.) _FILE NO.: Z-4855-H the Public Works requirements; and there are no land use issues. Staff recommended approval of the PCD. After a brief discussion the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The item was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent, and 4 abstentions. 0 April 25, 1996 ITEM N B Z-6083 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. 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. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: B Z-6083 (Cont.) TAFF ANALYSI The request is to rezone this 31± acre tract from 'DR-201 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 concern;. 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 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVIMN I Z- 83 n about protracted deferrals "wearing down the opposition." Each stated that they were not apposed 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. PLAMING COMMISSION ACTIOI : (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed. the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter on March 25, 1996 asking that this item be withdrawn. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for withdrawal. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO. C FILE NO. S 543-8 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 - 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 LIMBER F LOTS: 88 FT NEW _STREET: 4,370 ZONING: R-2 PROPOZEDUSES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRIV 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. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM-NO._;(Cont.)FILE--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,(REOUEST: 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 CONDITIaNS:. 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., Hunch Rd., and Chicot Rd. are asphalt or "chip seal", "open ditcher street sections which do not meet current City street standards. The bulk of the tract is zoned R-2. along the Chicot Rd. frontage of the tract immediately west of Chicot Rd. Valley Rd. All abutting property is small MF-6 area across Castle Valley corner of the tract. There is a C-2 tract plat area, and an MF-12 fronting on Castle zoned R-2, except for a Rd. at the southwest 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING RING ITEM NO (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-643--B C. E I RI TILITY MME T : Little Rock Public Works comments: 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 APDC&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 berequired. 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 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM(Cont.)FILE O.• -64 -B service is desired, a 10 foot easement along the front of the lots will be required. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. 1S_SUESILEGALITECHNICAL/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. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO. (Cant.) _ FILE NO, 5-64 The request is for "re -activation of the whispering Pines Subdivision', as "a resubmittal of a subdivision that was 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-yeas 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 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM(Cont,.)FILE S- 4 -B provides the needed wording for the Certificate of 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 Covey 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 6 April 25, 1995 SUBDIVISION HEARINQ ITEM NO.: C ( Cont . ) - , _._ FILE NQ� • 4 3 -B termination); or, 3) an extension of Whispering Pine Lane 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. Where 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, 1995 Subdivision hearing, and that the applicant submit a preliminary plat which conforms to the Subdivision Regulations, with specific requests for desired variances. 7 April 25, 1996 OUBDIVISIQN HEARING ITEM Cont. FILE NO.: S- 43-B SUBDIVI ION 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 farm 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 int❑ 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. 8 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVI51ON HEARING ITEM C(Cont.)FILE NO.• 5-64 -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. STAFF UPDATE Staff has not been contacted by the applicant following the Planning Commission hearing of March 14, 1996, at which the deficiencies of the submitted preliminary plat were discussed, and at which a deferral was requested and approved. The applicant was supposed to have addressed the deficiencies in the submittal and presented a revised preliminary plat to the Subdivision Committee on April 4, 1996. The applicant was not represented at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and has not contacted staff in the weeks following the March 14th. Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that. the Commission withdraw the application, requiring the applicant, if he wishes to pursue the matter in the future, to submit a new application. PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported to the Commission that nothing had been heard from the applicant since the last Commission meeting, with no revised drawings or information having been submitted nor did the applicant participate in the Subdivision Committee April 4, 1996. Staff recommends withdrawal of the recommended withdrawal was included on the Consent Withdrawal. The withdrawal was approved with the ayes, a nays, 1 absent, and a abstentions. meeting of issue, and the Agenda for vote of 14 0 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO, D FILE NO.; Z-4731-A tfAME : MEARS MIDI -WAREHOUSE -- LONG -FORM PD-C LOCATY: 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 c/o 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 6.45 ACRES NUMBER OF L T : 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONINg: I-3, MF-24, and R-3 PROPQSED USE : Mini -Warehouse PLAIMING 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 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HE&RING ITEM RQ.: D (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, D nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. ,STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PD-C in order to develop a mini - warehouse project on a 6.54 acre tract. Proposed are 9 mini - warehouse buildings, totaling 81,450 square feet of building areas. Areas for parking are to be provided. Improvement to w. 2nd. St., to provide access to the site, and construction of a cul-de-sac at the "dead-end" of W. 2nd. St. are included in. the proposal.. No improvement to Markham St. is proposed, since no access is to be taken (nor is any access possible, due to the extreme grade differential between Markham St. and the site). No improvement to the north -south alley abutting the west boundary of the site between W. 2nd. St. and Markham St. is proposed. .A. separated lot, abutting the east termination of W. 2nd. St., has been added to the site since the original submittal, and is, primarily to provide room to build the cul-de-sac. There is buildable area on this lot, however, and no use for this area is specified at this time. A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Hoard of Directors for the establishment of a PD-C is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The site drops off sharply from the grade of W. Markham St., and W. 2nd. St., from Summit St. eastward to the site, is steep and in poor condition. The area of the site along W. Markham St. is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, for the portion of the site at the end of W. 2nd. St. and east of the north - south alley; MF-24, for the area north of w. Markham St.; and, R-3, for the single lot north of W. 2nd. St. at its termination against the site. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: W. 2nd. St. must be reconstructed from Summit St. to the site to minor commercial street standards, with a turn -around device, in a dedicated right-of-way, at the "dead-end" of the street. A sidewalk along at least 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVIEIQN_HEARINQ ITEM D (Cont.) FILE NO.:. _Z-4731-A one side of the street is required. The street grade may not exceed 7%. A waiver of one-half street improvements for W. Markham St. will be supported by the Public Works staff; however, dedication of right-of-way, to standard residential street standards, for W. Markham St. is required to be provided. The applicant must ask for this waiver. A portion of Buttery St., a 150 foot section at the northwest section of the property, is still a dedicated right-of-way. Either abandonment of this right-of-way should be pursued by the applicant, or Master Street Flan requirements are applicable (i.e.., dedication of right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, and one- half street and sidewalk construction). If no access to the site is to be taken from the portion of Batter St. which is still open, the Public Works staff can support a wavier of the street construction requirements; however, the applicant must ask for the wavier. (The Public Works support of waivers from the Master Street Plan construction requirements for W. Markham St. and the portion of Battery St. are conditioned on the applicant waking the required improvements to W. 2nd. St.) Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works noted that a 24" main crosses the property in the abandoned right--of-way of W. 2nd. St., and a 2" main runs on or near the site. Easements are required to be dedicated to accommodate these mains. Any adjustments to the mains will be at the developers, expense. On -site fire protection will be needed. Little Rock wastewater Utility commented that the developer needs to contact the Utility to discuss sewer availability and location of any existing mains. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes: The areas set aside for buffers appear to meet ordinance requirements, with the exception o the 17 foot wide (11% foot, with transfer) buffer which is required along the northern perimeter. 3 April 25, 1996 SpBDIVISIOU HFARING ITEM D n FILE N Z-47 1-A 10 A 6 foot high opaque screen, eigh the face side directed outward, o plantings, are required adjacent zoned residential. In addition t requirement, one tree for each 40 will be required around the total site. t a wooden fence with r dense evergreen to all properties o the screening feet of perimeter perimeter of the The Landscape ordinance requires a 6 foot wide (4 foot minimum, with transfer) landscape strip between all vehicular use areas and adjacent property and public rights -of -way. This required landscape strip is absent along a portion of the western perimeter and all the northern perimeter. ISSUES/LEGAL/'TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 361-456 requires that a "statement describing the Character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant" be submitted. No "Project Narrative"/ -Cover Letter" has been submitted. This is needed to relate the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It is a "statement describing the character of the development.... It needs to describe the types of uses requested. (Only "mini -warehouse" has been noted; no provision for an office or manager's residence has been made.) The development schedule, indicating The approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, and any proposed phasing of the development, need to be included. The building construction type and heights need to be noted:. The Planning Commission may want to review the aesthetics of the development as it may have an affect on the State Capitol property. No PCD application form has been filled out. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. A topographic cross-section has not been furnished, as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Provision for any dumpsters must be made. If dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and established. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM D n FILE NO.: Z-47 1-A The Regulations require the applicant to submit a parking analysis with the application, to address the adequacy of the parking to be provided. This analysis has not been furnished. Sec. 36-502 requires, for warehousing uses, 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area up to'50,000 square feet, then 1 space for each 10,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet. In this case, 33 spaces are required. Generally, however, it is taken into account that the 'warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini -storage buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. if this interpretation is permitted in this case, then, there is sufficient parking, except for any needed parking adjacent to any office or residential use associated with the development. The Planning staff reports that the proposed PD-C is in the Heights/Hillcrest District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Warehouse and Industrial" uses for the site. The request is for Mini -Warehouses. The proposed use is consistent with the adopted plan, and there is no land use issue. The proximity of the location to the State Capitol, however, necessitates a careful review for aesthetics and compatibility. Also, the Neighborhood Association is in the process of reviewing land use plans for the area, and the proposed use may not be consistent with the plan, as adopted in the future. There are minor deficiencies in the submittal which should not be cause for rejection of the plan; however, the applicant needs to address the cited deficiencies to the Planning Commission satisfaction. The right-of-way at the northwest corner of the tract needs to be shown. waivers from Master Street Plan street construction requirements for this Battery St. right-of-way must be requested, as must the waiver for street construction requirements for W. Markham St. Any use for the single lot on the north side of W. 2nd. St., at the cul-de-sac, must be specified. Any office or residential use for the property must be identified and located on the site. Signage must be specified and located. Dumpsters must be located. Landscaping and land use buffer issues remain unresolved. The type of construction and the effect a "sea of steel roofs" will have from the State Capitol perspective needs to be addressed. An agreement to make improvements to W. 2nd. St., to provide adequate access to the site, needs to be gained. The site, at this time, is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan, and there are no land use issues to resolve. It is noted, however, that the Heights/Hillcrest Neighborhood 5 April 25, 1996 ®BDIVI ION HEARING ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE NO.: z-4731-A Association is undertaking a comprehensive land use study, and plans to address the land use plan in this area. The proposed use may be inconsistent with the adopted plan after the anticipated amendment.. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD-C, subject to the applicant making a full presentation to the Commission and both addressing the deficiencies noted and concerns cited. 5U'BDTVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer, was present. Staff reviewed the nature of the request, presented the site plan, and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the prepared discussion outline. Staff noted that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting, Mr. McGetrick noted that he would address the concerns and deficiencies noted. Staff reported that the Secretary of State's office had contacted staff, expressing concern about the proposed development, noting that the site is close to and is visible from the State Capitol grounds. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would meet with the Secretary of State's staff and try to allay their concerns. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant, Mr. Roger Mears, would comply with the Public Works requirements regarding improvements to W. 2nd. St. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. PLANNING_COMMISSIQN ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, addressed the Commission and identified the first item on the regular agenda as being this Item, "D". Mr. Sims requested that the application be presented at this time by Pat McGetrick, the engineer of record on the project. Mr. McGetrick came forward and identified the basics of the proposal with its location. He stated that Mr. Mears, the owner of the property, proposed to develop the site totally as mini - warehouses, and most these units would be on a north facing slope away from Markham Street visibility. Mr. McGetrick identified the access proposal to the site, identifying the several neighborhood streets that would be terminated or not opened to serve this project. He indicated that 2nd Street would be the primary point of entry entering from the west. This developer had agreed with Public works to improve 2nd Street to city standard, curb and gutter and full pavement. This improvement would be carried west to Summit Street. Mr. McGetrick identified 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARII+ ITEM NO.. D--_---(font.) FILE NO.: Z-4731-A the site as currently being a mix of I-3 Industrial and a MF Multifamily site on the northern portion. Mr. McGetrick then moved to his presentation on the design of the structures indicating that they would be a split block or split face type of construction. The roof and the door panels would be a dark forest green color. The question was then posed as to whether all of the trees would be removed from the site. General response was that there would be a severe grade change on most of this property which will cause extensive excavation. McGetrick pointed out also that a lot of the old Markham or 3rd Street bridge when it was demolished was placed on this property and that a significant portion of it has already been cleared. In a response to a question from the Commission, Mr. McGetrick pointed out that a number of existing trees and its natural growth would be left in place along the eastern perimeter of the project. This would be along the railroad track alignment and generally screen the project from the old. Train Station location. In a response to a question. from Commissioner Putnam, Mr. McGetrick pointed out the location of the railroad tracks and the creek that runs through this area. A question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn. The question being as to whether this developer had met with the neighborhood association in the Capitol view area. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that they had not met with them. However, they had been meeting with the Secretary of States Office. He stated that they had met with Ron Newman, of the Secretary of States office, at the project site. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the applicant's relationship to the neighborhood and whether or not there had been appropriate communication. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that he had not received any response from the neighborhood from the mailing that had been made and the signs that had been posted. Jim Lawson buttressed some previous remarks by saying that the Staff had provided that notice to the neighborhood association and there was no response. The question was then posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not the deficiencies outlined in the staff report had been addressed. Bobby Sims stated that they had been and there were currently no remaining issues to be resolved as far as design. A question was then posed as to whether or not the Secretary of States staff, in the meeting, had worked out their difference with this developer. Mr. McGetrick pointed out that Mr. Newman is present and he stated that they had not totally resolved the issues raised by the state. 7 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE NO.: z-$731-A The conversation then moved to what type of signage would be placed on the property. Mr. McGetrick stated that there would be one freestanding sign approximately 15 feet in height. This would be located in the area of the office building in the southern area of the project. Mr. McGetrick stated that, that height would get it above the buildings and they are 11 feet in height. He further stated that the sign as far as he knows would not be lighted. He stated this is a daylight operation only. Mr. McGetrick said, as to the size of the sign, it would be limited to that which is set forth by the Sign Ordinance for a commercial project. A question was then posed as to the hours of operation. Mr. McGetrick again stated that this would be a daytime business, opening early in the morning at daylight and closing at dark. A lengthy conversation then followed involving the number of issues from trees to landscaping access and notice. Mr. Sims■ of the Staff, introduced an item that had previously been overlooked in the conversation. He stated that there was a letter received from the Capitol view Neighborhood Association expressing their opposition. (Ed. Note: Later determined to be from the Capitol Zoning District Commission.) In this discussion, the Chairman then asked that objectors come forward. The first of these was Mr. Ron Newman, representing the Secretary of States Office. Mr. Newman stated that the primary objection that the state wishes to express is the visual relationship of this property to passersby and to the State Capitol grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the state had a significant investment in property south of the 3rd Street viaduct and roadway alignment. He stated that this would have possibly an adverse effect upon that improvement. He stated that the state is opposed to the project even though the Secretary of States Office recognizes the adopted Land Use Plan and the current zoning permit this type of activity. He stated that his office would like to see the City deny this application, but at the very least wait until the Heights/Hillcrest plan review has been accomplished. In closing his remarks, he stated that his office hopes that whatever is developed on this property and other adjacent sites would be something compatible with the State Capitol grounds. Tony Bozynski, of the Planning Staff, then came forward and offered comments about the land use plan amendment effort. Mr. Bozynski pointed out that the staff of his office had been working with the Capitol View/Woodruff Neighborhood Association to possibly make modifications in the land use plan for that .neighborhood. He pointed out that there is some discussion about making some modifications in the Plan. Some of those 0 April 2b, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO, D (_Qont.3 FILE NO.. Z-4731-A modifications being in the area where this proposal is located. He indicated that the direction at this time is perhaps going to be from the current industrial use to a multifamily type of use. Mr. Bozynski also cleared up the Board of Directors' study that had been alluded to earlier by saying that this study was in an area along the Markham Street corridor west of Pine Street and did not extend to this area of Markham Street. Again, another clarification was inserted by Mr. Sims. This being that the letter that had been discussed previously from the Capitol View Association being an objection. This letter was in fact from the Capitol Staff and not the Capitol View Neighborhood. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question of Mr. Newman as to whether or not it was purely aesthetics and visibility issues that the Capitol was concerned with. Mr. Newman responded by saying "yes". Mr. Newman also pointed out that Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol 'Zoning District Commission, was present and could answer questions. A brief discussion then followed involving Mr. Newman and several commissioners discussing the trees and their removal. Then a question was posed to Mr. Newman concerning the State Captol's efforts in developing a master plan for its buildings and grounds. Mr. Newman stated that the plan would only encompass that property on the Capitol grounds and would not directly effect property off -site. Commissioner Hawn then offered a lengthy commentary on how this was his neighborhood and the effects upon it by the State of Arkansas at the Med Center and some other factors. He stated that he recognized the zoning plan in place, and Land Use Plan. This Plan recognized the kind of uses proposed here. He finds no problem with the proposal. The conversation again moved to landscaping, fencing and trees, Mr. McGetrick identified where certain board fences, pear trees and other screening and landscaping devices would be located. During the course of this discussion, it was determined that the spacing required by ordinance was perhaps a little wide. Mr. McGetrick stated that his developer would plant them on half the spacing required by ordinance, which would be approximately 20 feet between the Bradford pear. Mr. Sims, of the Staff, pointed out that the Bradford pears are deciduous trees and will lose leaves during the winter. Perhaps, they should consider a possibility of some evergreens. 9 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO._: D(Cont.)------ FILE NO.: Z-4731-A Other comments were offered along this line. Mr. McGetrick responded by saying that within reason they would plant a mix of evergreens with the deciduous trees. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Butch Berry, of the Capitol Zoning District Commission (CZDC). Mr. Berry identified his position with the state. He commented that a meeting of the CZDC approximately a month ago resulted in a vote by that commission to oppose this project even though it lies outside their jurisdiction. He stated that without a doubt what is being proposed is an improvement to this site. However■ landscaping and how it looks is very important. He stated that if the Commission does not vote to deny this, he would at least hope that the Commission would defer the application. This in his judgment would offer some time for his office to meet with the owner and perhaps develop some modifications that could assist in the appearance and design of the project while not adding to the cost. The conversation them moved to comments from Commissioner Putnam and others concerning the relationship between the CZDC and the City. Bob Brown, of the Staff, said there had been a good working relationship over years. They had worked with us on landscaping issues on various projects. Mr. Brown pointed out that several elements of the presentation by Mr. McGetrick dealing with fencing and landscaping as to how certain modifications need to be made and could be incorporated into the plan. He also pointed out that good landscaping practice would require that the mix of evergreens and deciduous trees be close to a 50/50 ratio. In a response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Bob Brown reiterated his previous comment in stating that it is simply good practice to mix evergreen and deciduous trees. At this point, the discussion then moved to a motion. Chairman woods pointed out that he would like the motion to include the statement about trees being planted every 20 feet as opposed to the ordinance at 40 feet. The motion was then made to approve the application subject to inclusion of the condition offered by Chairman Woods. A vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The application was approved. 10 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.-.,?— E 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. Ronnie Bentley 2410 I-30 Alexander, AR 72202 847-515'5 ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln „ Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 42.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 140 FT. EW STREET: 5,200 AQNI R-2 PROPOSED__ ES: Single -Family Manufactured Homes PLANNI02 DISTRICT: Geyer Springs -West (15) CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 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 AC'TIOl: (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 April 2.5, 1996 ,E[JBDIVISION HEARING ITEM FILE NO.: Z-609 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, l absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is the development of 30.64 acre site, out of a 42.24 acre tract, for a manufactured home subdivision to contain 1.40 residential lots and a tract for an office and laundry facility. Homesites are to be lots with an average size of 50 feet by 125 feet, containing an average of 6,250 square feet each. The density of the site, then, is 5 dwelling units per acre. The development is to involve the construction of 5,200 linear feet of public internal streets, meeting City street standards. Building setback lines are to be 25 feet from the front right--of- way line, and side yard setbacks are 10 feet. The applicant notes that Sec. 31-338 of the Subdivision Regulations permits -open, unenclosed awnings and carports (to) occupy (up to) 45% of the required minimum spacing between mobile homes,, and retains this provision as applicable to this development. The applicant also retains the option to build "site -built" homes on the lots, in lieu of manufactured homes. A 6 foot high wood fence is to be provided at the perimeter of the development. Water service and wastewater disposal is available from the City of Little Rock, and these utilities are to be public utilities within the subdivision. An 11.6 acre tract, noted as "Reserved" on the plan, is not being developed at this time; although, one of the internal streets is extended to its boundary to provide access at a future date. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors for a PD-R is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The topography slopes upward from Alexander Rd., at an elevation of 350 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 370 feet along Alexander Rd. at the western edge of the tract. to 450 feet at the southeast corner of the portion of the site to be developed, to over 530 feet in the "Reserved" tract. Grades are generally 4-6% over the portion of the site to be developed; are over 30% in the "Reserved" tract. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARII IT E C n FILE o.: Z-6099 The existing zoning of the site, and of all abutting areas, is R-2. C. ENgINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTO: Public Works comments: Alexander Rd. is a Minor Arterial roadway, and the development of the site will necessitate dedication of right-of-way and one-half street improvements to Minor Arterial standards. Right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Alexander Rd. is required. A sidewalk must be constructed along the Alexander Rd. frontage. All internal street curves must be 150 foot minimum, and should have a sidewalk along at least one side of the streets. The lots shown could generate 1000 vehicles per day, with 100 lots using Lowe Dr. The Ordinance limits residential streets to 2500 vehicles per day. Lowe Dr., then, should be designed to collector standards. Monnie Loop should be terminated in a cul-de-sac. The name "Alexander Trail" is unacceptable. An APDC&E permit and site grading and excavation permits from the City must be obtained prior to beginning any work. The Stormwater Detention analysis is required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that, if overhead services are to be provided. 15 foot easements at the rear property lines of the lots will be required, if, on the other hand, underground service is requested, 10 foot easements are required at the front property line. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require 15 foot easements at the rear of all lots (straddling common rear lot lines; within the boundary of the tract at boundary lot lines). Little Rock Water Works comments that there is a 16" water main crossing this property. The easement for this main must be shown. Water main extensions will be required. An acreage charge of $1501acre and a front footage charge of $9.00 per foot on the 16" main apply, and that these charges are in addition to any normal charges. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION, HEARING ITEM NQT_-. - E (CQnt. ) FILE NO. Z-6099 The Fire Department approved the submittal. The Site Plan Review Specialist comments that, since the use is residential, there are no landscaping and land use buffers which are applicable. D. I E AL TE AL DE I Sec. 36-262 of the Zoning Regulations is the manufactured home district regulations. This sections states: "This district provides for ownership of structure and lot for (manufactured homes) approved by (HUD). The regulations require: 1) one manufactured home or one site -built home per lot, 2) a minimum area for the site of 5 acres; 3) a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, and a minimum lot width of 50 feet; and 4) front yard setbacks of at lest 25 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 feet, and rear yard setback of 25 feet (except at corner lots where, when the street side yard setback is kept at 25 feet, the rear yard setback may be decreased to S feet). Site -built accessory building or site --built additions to manufactured home are permitted. Manufactured homes must have a pitched roof of at least 3:1.2; the transport features must be removed, and the home placed on a permanent foundation; the foundation must be underpinned; the exterior wall material roust be compatible with site -built housing and be oriented to be compatible with the placement of adjacent structures; and, off-street parking must be provided. Key elements of this section have been met in the provided site plan. Allowance for accessory buildings has not been provided for. Sec. 36-126 requires Planning Commission review and approval of the site plan for all R-7A zoned developments. Sec. 36-452, the regulations pertaining to residential Planned Districts, permits "incidental commercial and office uses". The office and laundry facility are, then, permitted in the residential Planned Development. Sec. 36-460 specifies that, for residential Planned Developments, that the density "shall be determined on the basis of the densities of surrounding development It says that the allowed density is to be based on the zoning district in which the site is located, but that a guideline for the density is 4 units per acre for single-family developments. The section states that: "Well designed open space is an important factor in providing for innovative design and visual attractiveness." The guideline for providing common open space is: "A minimum of ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent of gross planned development area shall be designated as common usable open space". The guideline 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM No.: E (Cont.) __._. FILE NO.: Z- for providing private open space is: "Single-family developments shall have a minimum of five hundred (500) square feet of usable private open space per unit." The section continues: "At least fifty (50) percent of the required common usable open space shall conform to the average overall slope within the development." It states: "Recreation facilities or structures and their accessory uses, located in common areas, shall be considered as usable open space, as long as the total impervious surfaces, such as paving..., constitute no more than ten (10) percent of the total open space." The proposed density is 5 dwelling per acre; 4 is the guideline. No common usable open space has been provided. (Note that such common open space must conform to the overall slope within the development.) Sec. 36-456 required that, for a long -form planned development, a topographic cross-section be proved. This is needed, and has not been supplied. Sec. 36-456 requires that all uses not only be specified, but shown on their site. The anticipated office and laundry facility has not been shown the site plan. Sec. 36--456 required that a preliminary plat, meeting the requirements of Sec. 31-87 through 31-912 be submitted. This has not been provided. These requirements proved that a preliminary Hill of Assurance be submitted. This requirement has not been met. The required Project Narrative is a "statement describing the character of the development....". It needs to show the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, the development schedule, indicating he approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, any requested variances or waivers, etc. The submitted project narrative is insufficient, and does not address the needed and required information. Any waivers or variances from Public Works requirements must be identified and requested. A phasing plan must be submitted to identify the sequence of development. No PD-C application for has been submitted. The City Attorney staff person in attendance at the Commission meeting needs to advise the Commission on the legal aspects of limiting residential subdivisions to "site - built" homes versus manufactured homes. Current HUD approved manufactured homes meet the same building code requirements as site -built homes, and, with imposition of the requirements cited concerning placement on the lots, on permanent foundations, underpinned, etc., manufactured homes cannot be arbitrarily prohibited. 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEARING ITEM NO.; E (Cont.) FILE Na Z-§099 E. F. The Planning staff comments Creek District, and that the recommends "Single -Family". there is no land use issue. W that the site is in the otter adopted Land use Plan Since the use is single-family, Because development of the site would involve rezoning from R-2 to R-7A; because the R-7A zoning district requires site plan review by the Planing Commission; because the applicant is including an office and laundry facility in the residential area; and, because the applicant is planning to have, as an alternate, both manufactured and site -built homes, he chose to seek approval of both the use and the site plan in the Planned Development process, as opposed to pursuing two separate applicants. Because a Planned Development is proposed, all buildings or, at least, all building envelopes, need to be shown. Otherwise, amending the Planned Development as development occurs will be required. The office and laundry facility needs to be shown. Building envelopes for the home site need to be shown. Typical "footprints" need to be included. If accessory buildings are to be permitted to be added at later dates by homeowners, these need to be provided for at this time, with any lessened setbacks for accessory buildings provided for. The proposal complies with most manufactured home subdivisions district. The requirements of providing open space, however, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: of the requirements for as noted in the R-7A zoning Sec. 36-4+60, concerning have not been addressed. Staff recommends approval of the Planned Development, subject to the applicant amending his site plan to comply with the Public Works requirements, the open space requirements, the requirements noted for providing building envelopes and/or building footprints, and the requirements for completing the submission requirements as cited. SUBDIVIaIQH COMMITTEE QQMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer, was present. Staff reviewed the nature of the request, presented the site plan, and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the prepared discussion outline. Staff noted that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting. Mr. McGetrick noted that he would address the concerns 0 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION HEART ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z--6 prepared discussion outline. Staff noted. that Mr. McGetrick had been provided a copy of the discussion outline prior to the meeting. Mr. McGetrick noted that he would address the concerns and deficiencies noted. Cindy Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the issue of whether manufactured homes can be arbitrarily excluded and prohibited, and said that such a exclusion is prohibited. The Committee forwarded the applciaotn to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. 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: (APRIL 25■ 1996) Staff reported that the applicant's representative, Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, had notified staff prior to the meeting that he wished, to withdraw the application. Mr. McGetrick addressed the Commission, confirming staff's announcements, and asked that the item be placed on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The Commission agreed, and a motion was made and seconded to waive the By -Laws to permit the placing of the item on the Consent Agenda for Withdrawal. The motion to waive the By -Laws was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent. and 1 abstention (Rahman). The withdrawal was approved with the vote of 9 ayes. 0 nays, 1 absent. and 1 abstention (Rahman). 7 April 25, 1996 ITEM No • F FILE O.: Z- 2 9-A NAME: LQCATIQN- oWNERZAPPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE IDESICN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Faith Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit 10329'Mann Road Little Shot's Ent., Inc./ Faith Baptist Church by Rev. Charles Trull 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. The site is located on the south side of Mann Road, approximately 130± feet east of Leah Lane. 2. Comvatibility wi h i rhood: 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. April A5, 1996 SUBD IVI S I C?N ITEM F(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5269-A This proposal should have little impact on the surrounding properties. 3. On-9ite_ _Drives _"n� 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. Screening 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 En in er mm nts: 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, stornwater 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 2 April J5, 1996 BDIVI I ITEM F(Cont.)FILE Z- 2 -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. ataff Re omm nd i n: 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 BDIVISIdN COMMITTEE CQMIENT: (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. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISt,, IO ITEM NO.: F _ (CQnt.) FILE NO.: Z-5269-A The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING CObMISSION 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. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested withdrawal of this item due to complications regarding the right-of-way issues associated with this property. 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 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 4 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO,: G-23-246 Location• Owner/Applicant: Request• STAFF REVIEW: Mason Street and Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment 11,000 Block of xanis Road - North Side Robert M. Brown, Applicant To abandon that portion of Mason Street and Hardin Road located at Danis Road, running North 504f 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. 1. Public Need for this Right-of-wav 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 Adjacent _,gitreets 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. April A5, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 14QT_: G (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 ins 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 Posi_ti_on No neighborhood position has been voiced. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilitigs 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 Hell - 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. Reversi nary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM (ContFILE -23-24 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, 64 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 ACTIQI9: (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 April Z5, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:(Cont.)FILE NO.: Q-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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposed right-of-way abandonments. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 2.5, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the July 18, 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 July 18, 1996 commission meeting. The motion was passed on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 4 April 25, 1996 ITEM NQ, H River Market Design Overlay District REQUEST To amend the current River market Design overlay District STAFF REP T• The purpose of establishing the River Market District was to create a festive, pedestrian orientated district with a quality mixture of commercial, office and residential uses. once established the district will become a viable location for business, cultural and entertainment activities. Buildings, signs, street furnishings, trees should all be designed to be pedestrian friendly both during the day and at night. Careful planning is needed to insure proper placement of these items and to avoid these items from becoming a mass of visual clutter. Visual Clutter is not a major problem in the River Market District at present, but it is good planning to anticipate and prepare for future problems, especially after considering the potential benefits of new economic development. Guidelines and strategies must be in place to protect the district from the impacts of poor or unplanned projects. Incompatible development has the potential to destroy the very thing which will attract people to the district in the first place. Programs and policies should be enacted to maintain and enhance the visual quality of the River Market District, as well as to protect it from future development which might not be sensitive to the district. Physical design elements of the district should be controlled/reviewed to ensure appropriate design and compatible development. Since May 1995, the property owners within the River Market District have had monthly meetings. Also attending these monthly meetings were representatives from: City Manager's office, Little Rock Board of Directors, Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, Department of Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Comcast Cable, Little Rock Wastewater, APL, Southwestern Bell, Arkla, Little Rock Water, Highway Department, Central Arkansas Library System, Farmers Market, Museum Center and the Downtown Partnership. The goal of these meetings was to carefully coordinate the various activities which affect all involved parties. At the December 1995 meeting, Neighborhood and Planning staff presented the first draft of the Design Overlay District (DOD). Property owners were asked to review the DOD over the next couple weeks and Staff would meet with each property owner. Staff April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION decided to meet with property owners block by block, since they had common interests and concerns. Block meetings (usually two or three property owners) were held and comments and concerns were reflected in the next draft presented to the property owners at the February 1996 meeting. At the February 1996 meeting, Staff presented the updated draft of the DOD. Copies were handed out to property owners in attendance and were also hand delivered to all property owners. Staff asked property owners to contact Neighborhoods and Planning with any comments by March 1st, 1996. Minor adjustments were made to the DOD based on property owners, comments. on March 5, 1996, the Little Rock Board of Directors voted to approve Ordinance Number 17,136 (pages 4-5) which established the Design overlay District for the River Market District. The amendment to this Ordinance (pages 6-13) will include the Design Guidelines which have support from the property owners of the River Market District. STAFF RECOMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 28, 1996) Staff recommended the item to be placed on the consent agenda for deferral to the April llth, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. There was no one present in opposition of the deferral. The Planning Commission approved the consent agenda unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (APRIL 11,1996) Staff recommended the item to be deferred to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. There was no one present in opposition of the deferral. The Planning Commission approved the deferral unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays). STAFF UPDATE Staff would like to add wording to the adopted ordinance (pages 4-5) to add clarity to the purpose and intent section, and to the application of district regulations section. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO H. (Cont.) SECTION 1. A. Add the following two paragraphs after the first one. Visual Clutter is not a major problem in the River Market District at present■ but it is good planning to anticipate and prepare for future problems, especially after considering the potential benefits of new economic development. Guidelines and strategies must be in place to protect the district from the impacts of poor,or unplanned projects. Incompatible development has the potential to destroy the very thing which will attract people to the district in the first place. Programs and policies should be enacted to maintain and enhance the visual quality of the River Market District, as well as to protect it froze► future development which might not be sensitive to the district. Physical design elements of the district should be controlled/reviewed to ensure appropriate design and compatible development. SECTION I.C. Remove the existing second paragraph and replace with the following two; These regulations apply to all new development and redevelopment or expansion of existing development. The design guidelines will come into effect when, a building permit is requested for major exterior improvements. Routine repairs or maintenance and interior changes will not require compliance with the design guidelines. Any nonconforming use, structure or lot which legally existed prior to the effective date of this section or any use, structure or lot which has been rendered nonconforming by the provisions of this section may continue to be utilized in the same fashion as existed prior to the adoption of this section. Staff would also like to update the amendment (pages 6-13). SECTION 1.D.9. has been updated. SECTION I.F. has been removed. PLANNING OMMI I A TI (APRIL 25, 1996) Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and. Planning, presented some background on the Raver Market District and discussed the proposed Design Overlay District (DOD). Mr. Lawson reviewed the 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM _ NO , : „ _ H (Cont.) process for developing the Design overlay District and said there has been continued dialogue with the property owners on the DOD standards. Shawn Spencer, Planner 11, then reviewed the changes in the April 23, 1996 draft of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Spencer went through the draft page by page and responded to comments from the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson spoke again and said the River Market District would be accomplished through a private/public partnership. Mr. Lawson made some additional comments and there was limited discussion. Presley Melton, property owner on East Markham, addressed the Commission and expressed his concerns with the sign restrictions and said there should be further review of the sign section. Mr. Melton also said that he has reservations about the design review board. Frank Porbeck■ property owner at the northeast corner of East Markham and Commerce, said he was opposed to the DOD because of the problems associated with the cost -sharing figures. Mr. Porbeck went on to say that the DOD includes a new definition of sidewalk and he cannot support the adoption of the DOD because of the proposed sidewalk standard. Mr. Porbeck told the Commission that the current sidewalk standard was 6 feet for the downtown area. Mr. Porbeck said that the property owners' contribution needs to be defined and the City has not been able to establish a cost for the property owners' share, Mr. Porbeck said that he supports the concept of the district and the overall project. He said the owners have not been able to reach an agreement with the City on sidewalks and the cost element was the biggest problem. Mr. Porbeck made some comments about developing property on East Markham and he said he was satisfied with the overall approach to the DOD. Marshall Ross and Russell Matchett, property owners, said they agreed with Frank Porbeck's comments. At this point, chairman Ron woods requested the speakers to limit the discussion to the DOD and not the cost issue. Charles Brown, attorney for Farrell and Schaer Blueprint, spoke against the DOD and made a number of comments about the standards. Mr. Brown said that it would be premature to act on the DOD until the cost issue (sidewalks) was resolved.. Mr. Brown concluded by saying the DOD will impact the property owners. There was some discussion about various issues. Jack Larrison, property owner at Last Markham and Commerce, commented on the sidewalk definition and certain design elements 4 April 25, 1996 BDIVI I M ITEM H n . should be removed from the sidewalk section of the DOD. Mr. Larrison said that there should be separate DOD sections for the planting strips and other design elements of the proposed district sidewalks. Jim Lawson addressed the sidewalk issue and discussed the benefits of utilizing one contractor for the entire project. Jack Larrison spoke again and said the property owners have tried to negotiate with the City, but have failed to reach an agreement and the DOD should be deferred. Mr. Larrison also said that there were some problems with the DOD concept. Larry Jacimore indicated that he agreed with Frank Porbeck's comments. Greg Hart, 608 E. Markham, said that he also concurred with Frank Porbeck's remarks and then offered some comments about the process. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's office, responded to some points raised by several commissioners. There was a lengthy discussion about a number of the issues. Greg Hart spoke again and discussed plans to develop certain properties in the River Market District. Mr. Hart also said the sidewalk standards in the proposed DOD have been expanded. Jim Lawson told the Commission that deferring the item would not accomplish anything and the staff was opposed to a deferral. Ruth. Bell, League of Women Voters, supported the DOD and asked the Commission to approve the proposed ordinance. Frank Porbeck said the cost issue was a recent development and the definition of sidewalk was a significant problem. Mr. Porbeck suggested that the DOD and the sidewalk costs need to be separated. Mr. Porbeck said the DOD draft exposes the property owners to the state law. Russell Matchett, 318 East Markham, asked to address the Commission. Mr. Matchett discussed the sidewalk requirements and said cost was an issue. A motion was made to recommend adoption of the Design Overlay District standards for the River Market District with the condition that the cost -sharing arrangement be worked out by the Hoard of Directors prior to the adoption of the DOD Ordinance by the Board. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Brandon). 5 April. 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Cont.) (After the vote, the Planning Commission voiced some concerns with the cost issues associated with the sidewalks.) ORDINANCE NO. 17,136 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE RIVER MARKET DISTRICT PURSUANT TO DESIGN OVERLAY AUTHORITY, CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; FOR THE CREATION _OF STANDARDS_ FOR SIGNS ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the River Market District represents a significant historical and physical feature which the city wishes to maintain; and, WHEREAS, the River Market District is the core of a significant commercial, cultural and entertainment area that the city wishes to remain viable; and WHEREAS, the existing City ordinances are not compatible with the particular concerns for the River Market District; and WHEREAS, recent and possible fixture development and redevelopment may change the character and significance of the River Market District without special considerations; and WHEREAS, construction of public buildings are occurring in the district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, an overlay for the River Market District is hereby established as follows: A. Purpose and Intent The purpose of establishing the River Market District is to create a festive, pedestrian orientated district with a quality mixture of commercial, office and residential uses. Once established the district will become a viable location for business, cultural and entertainment activities. Buildings, signs, street furnishings, trees should all be designed to be pedestrian friendly both during the day and at night. Careful planning is needed to insure proper placement of these items and to avoid these items from becoming a mass of visual clutter. B. District Boundaries The district is to be all parcels in Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 6, Block 7 and Block 8 of Pope's Addition; and Block 35 and Block 36 of Original City. 2 C. Application of District Regulations The regulations of this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall overlay all other zoning districts and other ordinances requirements regulating the development of land so that any parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lie within one or more of the other underlying zoning districts. Therefore, all property within this -overlay district. will have..xequirements .of. both the underlying and overlay zoning districts in addition to other ordinance requirements regulating the development of land. In case of conflicting standards between this ordinance and other City of Little Rock ordinances, the overlay requirements shall control. These regulations apply to all development and redevelopment or expansion of existing development. D. Overlay Design Guidelines I. Signs on Public Buildings Signs on public buildings shall conform to the standards outlined in this Design Overlay District with the exception of those signs which have: significant architectural elements; serve as an entrance to the Riverfront Park and are otherwise consistent with the Design Overlay District standards, These exceptions have to be approved by the City Board of Directors. SECTION 2. Declaring an emergency. The Board of Directors hereby finds and declares that as a result of current and planned development in the River Market District, that in order to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this City, on emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval, PASSED: MARCH 5, 1996 ATTEST: APPROVED: Robbie Hancock Jim Daily City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: 10 rxas Mom_ =gnter City Attorney 5 D. Overlay Design Guidelines 2. Signs and banners located on or facing Markham Street, Commerce Street, Rock Street, Sherman Street, Cumberland Street and Second Street a. Location + Signs shall not hide any architectural detail or any features of the building. • Signs shall not visually clutter nor interfere with views of the v.- -building. Signs shall be confined to the flat surface of the building and not project further than 0'-5" from the building facade_ + Signs shall not be painted directly to the face of the building. + The maximum sign height on a building shall be below the second floor window sill; or in a single story building, below the overhang (except those permitted in D.1.) • Awning valences are appropriate locations for signage. • Signs shall not number more than three per business. • Signs should be adequately spaced from other signs. • Free standing signage shall be prohibited. b. Appearance • Signs should be compatible with the architecture of the building on which it is located. • The design of signs should capitalize on the special character of the River Market District. • Each sign shall be one quarter of a square foot of sign area for each linear foot of primary street building frontage, not exceeding 25 square feet per sign. ■ Window signs shall not cover more that twenty five percent of each glass panel. • Awning signs shall not exceed six square feet per awning. • Colors used on signs should be compatible with others used in the River Market District. • Materials used in the signs should be sensitive to signs and architecture on adjacent sites. • Neon shall be permitted, • In accordance with the federal Landham Act, businesses with registered trademarks are allowed to display that mark in signage. • Advertising copy on signage shall be prohibited. c. Lettering • Letters should not exceed 1'-6" in height. • Letters should not exceed three-quarters of the height of the sign, • No more than sixty percent of a signs total area should be occupied by lettering. d. Lighting of signs • Light fixtures for signs shall not be readily visible from the street or sidewalk. • Internally lit signs shall be prohibited, e. Banners • Banners shall be restricted to hanging from street lights. 0 3. Signs and Banners located on facades facing the Arkansas River The buildings facing both the River and East Markham present an unique opportunity to create their own character on the facades that face the River. These facades will share views with the Rirverfront Amphitheater and the River. These facades should compliment the festive atmosphere that has been established by the Riverfront Amphitheater and the River Market. a. Location • Signs should,not hide -any architectural detail or any features of the building.. • Signs shall not visually clutter nor interfere with views of the River. • Signs shall be confined to the flat surface the building and not project further than 0'-5" from the building facade. • Signs shall not be painted directly to the face of the building, • The maximum sign height on a building shall be below the overhang of the roof. • Awning valences are appropriate locations for signage. • Signs shall not cover more than ten percent of the facade facing the River. • Free standing signage shall be prohibited. b. Appearance • The design of signs should capitalize on the special character of the River Market District. • 'Window signs shall not cover more than twenty five percent of each glass panel. • Neon shall be permitted. ■ In accordance with the federal Landham Act, businesses with registered trademarks are allowed to display that mark in signage. • Advertising copy on signage shall be prohibited. c. Lighting of signs • Internally lit signs shall be prohibited. d. Banners • Banners shall be restricted to hanging from street lights, 4. Sidewalks a. Width • Sidewalks shall consist of a 7'-6" concrete walk and a 4'-0" red brick paving planting strip. • Sidewalks shall have an 12'-0" overall width from building face to curb face. b. Materials • The walks, curbs, gutters, and treegate frames shall be concrete. • The planting strip shall consist of red brick pavers. Handicapped ramps • Two (2) handicapped ramps shall be provided per corner or the entire corner may be turned down. • Ramps shall have 1:10 side slopes. • Ramps shall have a 1:12 maximum slope. • Ramps shall be 5'-0" in width with striations perpendicular to pedestrian traffic movement. • Slopes shall be congruent between ramps. • There shall be a minimum 5'-0" landing at the top of all ramps. 7 d. Curb and gutters • Curbs shall be typically 6" in height. • Gutters shall be typically 18" in width. e. Tree planting strip • The tree planting strip shall be a 4'-0" wide brick paving strip on 2" sand base and 18" topsoil backfill. • The 6'. concrete tree -grate -frame shall be integrated with the top of the curb. £ Utilities • All utilities shall be located under the street. g. Use • Sidewalks shall provide adequate clearance for ease of pedestrian traffic and movement. 5. Building form a. Materials • Historic materials or distinctive architectural features shall not be removed or hidden, • The type of materials and their color, texture, scale and detailing should be compatible with those of buildings on adjacent sites. ■ Surface cleaning on historic structures should be done with the gentlest possible method. b. Roof types Building roofs should relate to the overall size, shape, slope, color and texture of roofs of adjacent buildings on adjacent sites,. c. Openings • Historical upper facade windows shall retain original dimensions and details. • Historical storefront configuration shall not be altered. • New construction shall have a pattern of windows and doors which recall similar patterns on facades of buildings on adjacent sites. • Primary entrances shall be parallel with the street. d. Style and form • New construction shall not exceed three stories in height or a total height of 45'-0". • Buildings shall maintain the distinction between upper and lower levels. • Buildings shall reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades. of buildings on adjacent sites. ■ Historical context of buildings shall be restored to original designs. • The sides and rear of buildings shall be maintained properly, as these areas can be viewed from the street, interstate and the river. e. Mass • New construction wider than the typical building width shall be visually massed to appear similar to buildings on adjacent sites. • The primary facade of a building shall be oriented parallel with the street. 0 f. Projections • Objects shall not project from the building facade over the public right of way. (exceptions: awnings and balconies) • Awnings shall not project more than 3'-0" from the building facade and have a minimum clearance of 9'-0" above the sidewalk. • Balconies over the public right of way shall have a minimum clearance of 9'-0" above the sidewalk. One inch of projection is permitted for each additional -inch of clearance above 8'-0", provided that no such projection shall exceed a distance of 3'-0". g. Graphics • Historic wall murals painted on the exterior masonry wall shall be preserved and maintained. h. Setbacks • Buildings shall retain similar setbacks as buildings on adjacent sites. b. Awnings a. Appearance • Colors should be compatible with others used in the River Market District. • Awnings shall relate to the shape of the opening. • Awnings shall have a minimum clearance of 9'-0" from the sidewalk. • Awnings shall not project more than 3'-0" from the building facade. • Awnings shall be manufactured from canvas, vinyl coated canvas, acrylic fabrics or other architectural materials compatible to the building and to the River Market District. b. Location • Awnings shall cover only the store front display windows or transom above the main entrance. Upper facade details shall not be obscured. • Direct back lit awnings are prohibited. c. Use • Retractable canvas awnings are allowed but may not extend more than 4'-0" and maintain a clear height of 9'-0" 7. Landscaping a. Plant Materials • Markham Street from I-30 to Cumberland Street shall be Acer x Freemanii `Jeffersred'; Autumn Blaze Maple trees. • Commerce Street from Markham to Second Street shall be Acer x Freemanii `Jeffersred'; Autumn Blaze Maple trees. • Streets with northlsouth orientation including and between 1-30 and Cumberland Street and north of Second Street shall be Taxodium distichum; Bald Cypress trees. • Second Street from 1-30 and Cumberland Street shall be Fra.xinus pennslvanica `Marshall's Seedless'; Marshall's Seedless Green Ash trees. • Plazas and open spaces shall be Ostrya virginiana; American Hopombeam trees and Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis `Moraine'; Moraine Thornless Honeylocust trees. 0 b. Size • Street trees shall be 3"-3 112" caliper trees. • Plazas and open spaces shall be 1 112'-2" caliper trees. c. Location and spacing • Trees shall be 30'-0" on center and 2'-0" off back of curb. • Trees shall allow for adequate site distance at intersections. d. Irrigation systems • Irrigation systems shalt provide four (4) irrigation bubbler heads per tree well. • All systems shall have backflow precentors. • Automatic controllers shall be pole mounted. • 'Valve box covers shall have snaplocks and be located within the brick planter strip. e. Tree grates • Tree grates shall be 4'x4' cast iron with slot openings no more than 1 J4". • Tree grates shall be set into concrete and angle iron curb collar; 6" exposed at surface, minimum 12" depth. f. Subdrainage • A gravel drain shall consist of a 4" perforated pipe wrapped in washed, crushed gravel and geotextile running parallel with planting strip. • A gravel drain shall be approximately 4'-0" below finished pavement elevation and connected to the storm drainage inlet. • The bottom of the gravel drain shall be sloped for positive flow towards the 4" perforated pipe g. Planting medium • Topsoil backf ll shall contain 10% organic material and be free of -objectionable materials, • The tree root ball shall be set in place on compacted SB-2 sub -base pedestal and covered with 2" washed river gravel. 8. Street lights and furnishings a. Lights • Pedestrian posts and luminaries shall be Antique Lighting "Capitol" Series; catalog # C 12117-Cl/BK-WAT-23/BK/FB-M175I240-111. • Roadway intersection posts and luminaries shall be Antique Lighting "Capitol" Series; catalog # C 17f20-CISIBK-WAT-231BK/FB-M2501120-1I1-PEC. b. Spacing and location • Pedestrian, posts and luminaries shall be located every third tree within a block. • Roadway posts and luminaries shall be located 15'-0" off right-of- way of perpendicular streets; one (1) per corner. c. Furnishings • Signage and street equipment shall be in the same design family as light posts and luminaries. • Trash receptacles shall be manufactured by Cantebury International; Pennsylvania Avenue Model. 10 • Benches shall be located on the inside of roadway intersections posts and luminaries and style manufactured by Dumor Model # 57 Bench; six (b) foot long. • Bus shelters and information kiosks shall be uniform in architectural language and character to streetscape equipment and building form. • Newspaper stands shall be of the same style and size and be incorporated as an integral part of the street furnishings. 9. Lund use a. Type • A mixture of office, commercial and residential land uses should be permitted throughout the River Market District, 'these uses should be both neighborhood and pedestrian orientated and should discourage uses which require heavy automobile use. b. Location • First level of buildings should provide visual interest to pedestrians. c. Compatibility • Uses should be compatible with the River Market District's overall philosophy of a pedestrian oriented cultural and entertainment center for the City of Little Rock, 10. Streets a. Crosswalks • Crosswalks shall be constructed of red brick pavers bound by 1'-0" wide by 2'-0" tall concrete band on both sides. • The running bond brick pattern of the crosswalks shall run perpendicular to vehicular traffic. • Brick pavers shall be 8000 p.s.i. to withstand vehicle loads. 11. Parking a. Location • Parking lots shall maintain typical setbacks. • Parking lots shall not surround a building. • Buildings should not be removed to provide surface parking. b. Landscaping • Parking lots abutting sidewalks shall have a buffer area. • Parking lots shall follow the minimum landscaping requirements as set forth in the Landscape Ordinance. Landscaping beyond that which is required is encouraged. c. Lighting • Parking lot lighting shall match the style used on the streetscape. d. Design • Parking lots shall be sensitive to the overall design of the River Market District, e. Mass transit • Parking lots of more than 50 vehicles shall provide the opportunity for parking buses. 11 12. Curb cuts a. Location • New curb cuts on Markham Street shall be prohibited. • Existing curb cuts on Markham Street should be removed or minimized to reduce conflicts with pedestrian traffic. • Curb cuts on Commerce Street should be removed or minimized to reduce conflicts with pedestrian traffic. ■ Curb cuts on Second Street, Sherman Street and Rock Street should be removed or minimized to reduce conflicts with pedestrian traffic. b. Number per block • Curb cuts shall be minimized to allow for easy and safe pedestrian movement throughout the River Market District. c. Size . Curb cuts shall be limited to a maximum of 22'-0" in width. 13. Open Spaces/Plazas a. 'Size • Open spaces/plazas shall not be smaller than 1200 square feet. • Open spaces/plazas shall provide one seating space for each fifty square feet of open area. • Open spaces/plazas shall be accessible along one fourth of its perimeter. • Open spaces/plazas shall be visible from adjacent public areas. • Open spaces/plazas shall have a sense of enclosure so that the space provided feels like an outdoor room. b. Landscaping • A minimum of twenty percent of open space/plazas shall be set aside for landscaping. 14. Alleys a. Use • Alleys should serve as attractive alternative routes for pedestrians, as well as efficient service access for vehicles. • Existing northlsouth alleys in the River Market District should be used for pedestrian movement only. All vehicular traffic is prohibited. • Eastlwest alleys should be used for egress and ingress to the rear of buildings and parking lots. • Alleys should have adequate lighting for pedestrians. 15. Fences/Walls a. Design • Chain link fences and razor/barbed wire are prohibited. • Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate where compatible with the style of the building. 16. Views a. Corridors • New construction shall be sensitive to all view corridors including: the East Markham Street corridor and the Commerce Street corridor. 12 b. River Views of the River shall be protected from any obstructions or visual clutter. G. River Market District Design Review Committee A Design Review Committee (DRC) will be established by the Board of Directors to protect the -visual. integrity of the River Market District. The Board of Directors will appoint a five member committee consisting of; 1. One (1) land owner of property in the River Market District. 2. A representative from the Quapaw Quarter Association to be selected from a list of three recommended by the QQA Board of Directors. 3. A design professional (architect, planner or landscape architect). 4. A representative from the Downtown Partnership to be selected from a list of three recommended by the Downtown Partnership. 5. A representative from the City to be named by the City Manager's Office. The appointments to the DRC shall be so arranged that the term of at least one (1) member will expire each year, and their successors shall be appointed in a like manner for terms of three (3) years. Members who are appointed to fill vacancies for unexpired terms shall join the DRC at the next meeting following their appointment and confirmation. The Design Review Committee (DRC) will meet with the developer or designer of River Market District projects involving construction of a new building, exterior work on an existing building and any new signage. No building permit will be issued unless the DRC has reviewed the proposal. The DRC will meet on call as projects are fled with the planning staff. A written record of the review and recommendation would be forwarded to the Planning Commission on proposals not meeting the design guidelines established by the design overlay district. The DRC will function with a primary goal to provide substance and governance to the overlay design guidelines. This includes: 1. Providing businesses in the River Market District ,guidance in adhering to the overlay design guidelines. 2. Reviewing all new signage applications within the River Market District. 3. Conducting annual reviews of all businesses within the River Market District to ensure plan regulations are being followed. 4. Timely review variance submissions made by property owners within the River Market District. 5. Maintaining a comprehensive variance report of all allowances made above and beyond the plan regulations. 6. Forwarding a review and recommendation of a proposal (not meeting the established guidelines) to the Planning Commission. 13 April 25, 1996 ITEM 1 FILE-45-A-21 NAME: OTTER CREEK VILLAGE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION -- REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Stagecoach Rd. and titter Creek Parkway. DEVELOPER: Tommy Hodges Pat McGetrick STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-5557 223-9900 AREA: 12.57 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 & C-3 PROPOSED USES: General Retail (Shopping Center), office -Warehouse, and Mini -Warehouse PLANNING DISTRI : Otter Creek (15) CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES RE E TED• A variance is requested to permit access to two lots (Lots 2 and 3) to be gained by way of access easements in lieu of having the required frontage on a public street. BACKGROUND: A preliminary plat for the Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision was .reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1995. The plat, at that time, covered an area of 11.5 acres and proposed 6 lots. The area fronting on both Stagecoach Rd. and on Otter Creek Parkway remain the same in the new application; the area at the southwest corner of the previously approved preliminary plat has been extended further to the west than was originally included. The original plat also had two "landlocked" lots, and access easements were approved to provide the required access from. Stagecoach Rd. and Otter Creek Parkway to the interior lots. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 1(ContFILE NO,,: S-45-A-21 STATEMMU'r__OF PROPQSAL A revised preliminary plat for the Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision has been submitted, and approval of this new plat, including an increased -area and lot configuration is requested. The land area for the revised preliminary plat is increased from the 11.5 acres included in the 1995 application to 12.57 acres. The number of lots for the revised preliminary plat is increased from the 6 lots included in the previous applciaotn to 7 lots. The lots range in area from less than an acre to over 4 acres. Lots 2 and. 3 are "landlocked", in that they do not abut a public street; access easements across adjoining lots (which do have frontage on a public street) are proposed in order to provide access to these interior lots. Approval, then, is requested for access to these lots to be provided by way of access easements. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a revised preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission approval of a variance to permit access to two "interior" lots (Lots 2 and 3) to be gained by way of access easements from Stagecoach Rd. and otter Creek Parkway across abutting lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. There is only about a 3 foot topographic grade differential across the site. The existing zoning of the site. is C-2 (for all the site except for the lot at the southeast corner of the tract) and C-3 (for this southeast corner lot). Property to the south is zoned C-2; to the west, MF-24; across Otter Creek Parkway to the north C-1 and MF-18; and, across Stagecoach Rd. to the east, R-2. There is a C-3 "node" across Stagecoach Rd. to the southeast. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments: The plan needs to be revised to combine the two northerly drives on Stagecoach Rd. into one 36 foot. wide drive, with a continuation of this width to the west. This drive should be Located between Lots 1 and 5. Access easements should be wide enough to include the sidewalks on each side of the entrance drives. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM I(Cont,)FILE NO.. -4 -A-21 Since the drives access multiple lots, they are to be designed as commercial streets, with sidewalks. Since the plat area extends to the Otter Creek Rd. intersection, widening of the roadway, in conformance with the preTiminary'plans of ABTD should be provided versus payment of In -Lieu. Full one-half street to minor arterial standards will be required, with a. sidewalk on the frontage of the property, including relocation of City -owned utilities. The plans should make provision for right -turn lanes at the entrance drives. Dedication of appropriate right- of-way will be required. An AHTD permit will be required. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. USACR-LRD must approve the plans. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power and Light Company noted that 15 foot ease- ments will be required along both boundary street frontages and along the lot lines between Lots 6-7 and Lot 1 and between Lots 2-5 and Lot 1; and 10 foot easements will be required along both the west and north lot lines of Lot 4. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150lacre applies. No connections will be allowed to the 16" main which is on the west side of Stagecoach. Rd. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. T E LE AL TE HNI AL DE I The plat proposes access to Lots 2 and 3 to be gained by way of access easements across abutting lots, in lieu of their having direct frontage on Stagecoach Rd. Access by way of access easements is a variance request which must be approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-231 states: `•Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission." The requirement in this section is that the improvements within the access easement are to meet the pubic street design standards; thus, the anticipated private 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 1(Cont.)FILE S-4 -A-21 streets are to be the required 35 foot width and have sidewalks along both frontages of the streets. The proposed access easements, by which access to interior "landlocked" lots is to be gained, must be increased in width to accommodate the required street and sidewalks. A building setback line needs to be designated along these access easements to restrict the placement of buildings along the easement frontage of the lots. E . ANALYSIS: Access to interior lots by way of access easements is provided for in the Subdivision Regulations, and is an approval which the Planning Commission may grant. Such approvals are routinely granted, and the request is not out of line with other similar requests. All required information has been provided, and the presented plat has all required information showy. There are no technical deficiencies remaining to be remedied. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat, and recommends approval of the variance to permit the access easements to provide the required access to Lots 2 and 3. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The committee reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, and discussed the issues with Mr. McGetrick. Mr. McGetrick reported that he would make the needed changes in the drawing and would supply staff with revised drawings and information, as required. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) - FILE NO.: 5-45-A-21 PLANNING COMMISSSION At`.,TION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that all issues with Public Works have been resolved; that the two northerly drives have been changed to provide for one two-way access point and one "right-in/right-out" point; that the access easements have been widened, as required; that the access drives will conform to commercial street standards; and, that Stagecoach Rd. will be widened to provide the additional lane for a "deceleration lane". Staff recalled that the applicant requested approval of an access easement for access to the two lots that do not have frontage on public street, and recommended approval of the requested variance. The approval of the Preliminary Plat and of the requested access easement were included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and were approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. 1 absent, and 0 abstentions, 5 April 25, 1996 ITEM 2 FILE S- 4-A IMAMS: UNITED PROPERTIES SUBDIVISION■ LOTS 1R AND 2 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATI On the south side of Kanis Rd., approximately 0.1 mile west of Bowman Rd., and extending southward with frontage on Bowman Rd., approximately 400 feet south of Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: Pat NcGetrick UNITED PROPERTIES MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln. Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 7221.1 223-9900 223-9900 AREA: 6.71 ACRES NUMBER QF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZQNING• PCD & R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT. CENSUS TR&CT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: .PROPOSED USES: Ellis Mountain (18) None Mini -warehouse, and general office and enclosed retail uses Planning Commission review of a proposed PCD was conducted on May 13, 1986, with the PCD being established by the Board of Directors on June 3, 1986, in Ordinance No. 15,105. This action. resulted from a request to add buildings to an already existing mini -warehouse facility. The facility had been in existence prior to being annexed into the City, and was a "non -conforming" use. The area involved was 2.57 acres. There were 5 existing buildings, with a total of 37,275 square feet of mini -warehouse area. Two additional buildings, with a total floor area of 16,140 square feet was proposed at that time. Dedication of 10 additional feet of right-of-way along Kanis Rd. was provided by Quitclaim deed. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-954-A Subsequently, on April 7, 1992, an amendment to the 1986-approved PCD was proposed. This amendment added a 2.65 acre tract south of the originally included property, and added 5 more buildings totaling 31,620 square feet. Provision was made at that time to add the area to the east of this additional tract, out to Bowman Rd., a 1.49 tract, as future development area. Based on the Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat of the 5.22 site, a final plat was filed on August 10, 1992. This plat shows an 80 foot right-of-way for Kanis Rd. Included in the plat file for the final plat of the 5.22 acre •'Lot 1" tract is a letter from the City Engineer returning the proposed Quitclaim deed for an additional 5 feet of required right-of-way for Kanis Rd., rejecting its wording which required the City to rebuild the existing fence along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site if the City required its removal from the right-of-way. The City Engineer suggested that the property owner apply for a franchise for the continued use of right-of-way for the fence, but indicated that the owner would be responsible for removal of the fence if the area were seeded for future street improvements. There is nothing after this date to indicate that the Quitclaim deed was amended and submitted (and filed) as required, nor that the franchise was requested. STATEMENT QF PROPOSAL: The applicant now requests inclusion of the 1.49 acre tract, (which extends eastward from the east edge of the tract added to the PCD in 1992, out to Bowman Rd.) into the plat area, for a total land area of 6.71 acres. Lot 1R is proposed to include all of the land area of the existing Lot 1, plus 102.27 feet eastward onto the added tract. Lot 2 is to be the remaining portion of the tract out to Bowman Rd. The applicant proposes to dedicate 25 feet of additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. and to widen Bowman Rd. to provide the required one-half (of a 60 foot) Minor Arterial roadway. (No provision is made for additional right-of- way nor street improvements along Kanis Rd.) A. PROPOSAL/RRQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. 2 April 25, 1996 BDIVI I ITEM NO. 2 (Cont. _.. ,.._ FILE—Na.; 5-954-A B. EXISTING CONDITIOkIS: The site is developed. Most of the area designated at Lot 1R is the location of the Kanis Mini -Storage facility. The remaining portion of Lot 1R, plus the area designated as Lot 2, is a residential lot which has had a residential structure located on it for decades. The topography of the site rises from an elevation along Bowman Rd. of 432 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level), to an elevation of 480 at the west edge of the property. There are existing retaining walls along the west property line and at the southeast corner of Lot 1 to permit the mini -warehouse development of the site. There is a 50 foot buffer designated along the west property line of the 1992--added tract (which abuts residential lots), and a 20 foot buffer along the south boundary of the tract. The existing zoning of the property is PCD for the original Lot 1, and R-2 for the remaining area. To the south and to the west of the 1992-added tract is R-2 zoned property. To the west of the original 1986 tract is "Bank and Business Forms" in a PCD. At the southwest corner of Kanis Rd. and Bowman. Rd. are non -conforming commercial uses in an R-2 zoned area. Across Bowman Rd. to the east is the skating rink (also a non -conforming commercial use on R-2 zoned land) and C-3 zoned property. Across Kanis Rd. to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: The replat of Lot 1 necessitates dedication to Master Street Plan standards of the right-of-way for and Master Street Plan pavement widening on Kanis Rd. An additional 6 feet of widening is required for Kanis Rd., but an "In -Lieu" contribution versus construction of the street improvements is recommended at this time. The dedication of the additional right-of-way is to include relocation of City owned utilities. It is recommended that the applicant apply for a franchise for the fence which is located on the City right-of- way. (It is located within 35 feet of the centerline of Kanis Rd.) Relocation of the fence will be at the applicant's expense when Kanis Rd. is widened. The required right-of-way is 45 feet from centerline of Kanis Rd. for this Minor Arterial street. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM O • 2(Cont.)FILE -954-A Lot 2 will require dedication of right-of-way for Bowman Rd. to minor arterial standards and one-half street widening, including relocation of City -owned utilities. (An "In -Lieu" is not recommended for this frontage.) This widening will allow for vehicles to get off the traveled lanes prior to accessing the drive. A grading permit is required. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will required a 5' easement along the north, west, and south lot lines of Lot 2. Little Rock Water works comments that a pro-rata frontage charge of $2.50/foot on Bowman Rd. or $12/foot on Kanis Rd. applies. Can --site fire protection may be required. Little Rock wastewater Utility comments that sewer is located along Kanis Rd. and Bowman Rd. Sewer is also located at the southwest corner of Lot 1R. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. The Fire Department approved the plat. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN; No cover letter and no information sheet has been provided. No request for a waiver from dedication of right-of-way or street improvements is made for the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site. No provision is made for dealing with the fence which is located on right-of-way along the Kanis Rd, frontage of the site. Lot 2 has been changed to Lot "2R" on the revised plat submitted following the Subdivision Committee meeting. E. ANALYSIS: From a technical aspect, the preliminary plat is complete; it shows all required information. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-954-A Public works has noted that right-of-way dedication is required for both Kanis Rd. and Bowman Rd.; that one-half street improvements (with a sidewalk) are required along Bowman Rd. and that, an "In -Lieu" payment be made for Kanis improvements. Dealing with the fence along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site must be addressed at this time. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the Public works rights -of -way and street improvements issues being addressed, and subject to either the fence along Kanis Rd. being removed from the right-of-way or a franchise being granted by the City. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, and discussed the issues with Mr. McGetrick. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, discussed with Mr. McGetrick the right-of-way and street improvements issues, as well as the fence issue along Kanis Rd. Mr. McGetrick reported that he would make the needed changes in the drawing and would supply staff with revised drawings and information, as required, The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) The Chairman asked Bobby Sims, of the Staff, to present Item No. 2 on the agenda. Mr. Sims offered a brief comment which stated that this item had been intended to be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. However, the owner has determined that there are issues attendant to this plat filing that require further discussion. These primarily have to do with the improvement to Kanis Road and the right-of-way issues attendant to that improvement. Mr. Sims pointed out for the record that the sole reason for placing this on the regular agenda is to deal with that right-of-way and improvement issue, and eventually a franchise through Public Works Department for retention of an existing chain link fence on the right-of-way after dedication. Sims identified David Scherer, of Public Works, as the staff person to address these improvements and right-of-way issues. Mr. Scherer offered an overview of the project and its history concerning when certain improvements were made on both the 5 April 25, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-954-A building and the site and physical improvement in the right-of- way of Kanis Road. He stated that part of this project began even before it was annexed. On the original approval by the Planning Commission and the City Board as a PCD for mini - warehouses, there was a Master Street Plan requirement of 80 feet total or 40 feet from the centerline. At that time the improvement on pavements was one-half of a 48 foot roadway. Since that time, the standards of a Master Street Plan have been increased to a 90 foot right-of-way with one-half of a 50 foot roadway improvement. Mr. Scherer pointed out that the developer at that time did provide the right-of-way and constructed the one-half street improvements. The change in the Master Street Plan occurred during 1988. He pointed out that in 1992 a developer came in with a second phase of construction on this project on a tract of land that proposed access to Bowman Road and would have no immediate affect or access upon the Kanis frontage. At that time, there was no assessment or even discussion on of requiring improvements or additional right-of-way on Bowman. That plan asked for deferral of the Bowman Road improvements until the second phase of the project was constructed. Scherer pointed out that the application now before the Planning Commission consists of the original site and some seven buildings, the five buildings of the second phase which came in 1992 and a new large building to be added to the total. All of these will take access from Kanis Road. Scherer pointed out that at this point that the developers have agreed to right-of-way which would be 90 feet as opposed to 80 feet. However, the disagreement comes in that the pavement requirement is no longer 24 feet from the centerline but 30 feet. He also pointed out that the intersection of Bowman and Kanis is very near this project. Indeed about a half block. Public works has applied for federal funding for improvements to this intersection and signalization which will be impacted by the ability to provide the right-of-way and the improvements. Therefore, the current disagreement here between the City and this developer is the additional 5 feet of pavement to bring this road to the standard that is required currently for the Master Street Plan. Scherer stated that he believed it is purely an issue of the developer having constructed the city's Master Street Plan requirements in an earlier time. At this time, he feels that it is not his responsibility to add the additional 5 feet. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn about where the new building would take access. David Scherer pointed out that all of this complex would be utilizing the same Kanis Road access point. The question was then posed about the fence and right-of- way. The fence issue was addressed by Scherer. He stated that the fence was located along a property line derived from the 0 April 25, 1996. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-954-A original dedication to an 80 foot right-of-way. At this time, once the new right-of-way is dedicated the fence would be located inside the new street alignment. Therefore, a franchise from the City would be required to maintain that fence until such time as the City requires its removal. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Pat McGetrick, the engineer for the project. Mr. McGetrick came forward and offered commentary in support of the application. He stated that his developer feels that he had complied with all of the city's requirements for the Master Street Plan at an earlier time. They did construct all that the City required, that being half of the 48 foot street, curb and gutter, and other improvements. He feels at this time it is not appropriate for them to tear that out and rebuild it. Simply just to build one more building on their project site. In a response to a question from a commissioner. Mr. McGetrick referred to the illustration that he had presented. The response that he offered had to do with the circulation, the access and how the building that is proposed would tie in with the other structures. Bobby Sims, of the Staff, reminded the Commission that they would not only need a motion to approve the preliminary plat but a second motion to deal with the waiver requested by the applicant. A brief discussion then followed involving David Scherer. of Public works, and several of the commissioners. Again discussing the improvements, the intersection, and the relationship of this project. Pat McGetrick, representing the applicant, injected a thought, that, what the city is requiring here is the applicant throw out the $15.000 dollars that was spent several years to widen the street, and now spend an additional $15,000 dollars to rebuild it 6 feet wider. The Chairman asked for two motions to be presented, one on the application as filed for the preliminary plat and the other on the applicant's request for waiver. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as submitted and revised to the staff recommendation. This motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The second motion was offered dealing with the waiver request placed in the form of and motion that the developer make the improvements. A vote on this motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays. and 1 absent. Therefore. the waiver was denied and improvement are required. 7 April 25, 1996 SIIHLIVISIOH ITEM O.: 2 Cont. FILE NO.• S- 54-A Ed. Note/RW After the meeting staff was informed by Mr. McGetrick that his developer has decided to provide the in -lieu on Kanis Road and not pursue a waiver. 93 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO. 3 FILE NO. S-107�—A NAME: ARKANSAS SYSTEMS OFFICE PARK, LOTS 4 THROUGH 8 -- REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the east side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile north of the west Kanis Rd. intersection. DEVELOPER: Tim Daters CHENAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. c/o 401 W. Capitol, Suite 300 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376 -8005 374--1666 AREA: 29.7 ACRES NUW3ER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 2700 ZONING: O-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENS11S TRA T• 42.06 VARIANCES REOFJESTED: BACKGROUND: Chenal (19) None PROPOSED USES: General Offices On August 8, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the Arkansas Systems Office Park. This plat covered a 67.8 acre tract and designated. 5 lots. An east -west collector street, bisecting the site and running from Chenal Parkway on the west, to Kirk Rd. on the east, was planned, with construction of this street to be phased with development of the abutting lots. Lot 2 of this subdivision is the location of the Arkansas Systems Office building currently under construction. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a revised preliminary plat of the area shown in the approved preliminary plat as Lots 4 and 5. These two lots are now proposed to be divided into Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The area represents 29.7 acres of the original 67.8 acres. No change is proposed for Lot 2, where Arkansas Systems is currently building its office building, ar to Lots 1 and 3. No change is proposed to the approved east -west collector street, Systems Dr. Added is a north -south commercial street, entering the property at the southwest corner of the tract (in line with the planned and provided median cut in Chenal Parkway), and running north to connect with Systems Dr. approximately 400 feet April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1073-A from Kirk Rd. This north -south commercial street is proposed to be a public street. Dedication of right-of-way and one-half boundary street improvements are proposed along the Kirk Rd. frontage of Lot 8. "Right -in and right -out" drive access points are proposed at the common lot line between Lots 5 and 6, and to provide access to Lot 4.- No variances to Subdivision Regulations are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Planning Commissions review and approval of a revised preliminary plat is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Arkansas Systems Office Park is the site of the Arkansas Systems office building currently under construction. This building is located on Lot 2 of the approved preliminary plat. Lot 3, off Kirk Rd., is the location of a residence and out -buildings; a large pond is located on the lot. Lot 1 is undeveloped. These lots are not included in the current revised preliminary plat area. The area of Lots 4 through 8 is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The topography ranges from an elevation of 530 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of Lot 4 to 510 feet at the mid -point of Lot 6 on the Chenal Parkway right- of-way line. Along Kirk Rd., the elevation is approximately 540-544 feet. The entire area is zoned 0-2. Property to the north is zoned C-2 and R-2; to the south, C-3 and 0-2; across Kirk Rd. to the east, 0-2 and MF-18; and, across Chenal Parkway to the west, PCD, 0-2 (the location of the GMAC Office building currently under construction), and MF-24. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: The 900 turn in the street along the south boundary of Lot 6 is unacceptable. A street with a proper radius of curvature must be provided, or provision must be made for a "T" intersection, with one leg of the -T" extend-ing southward onto the adjoining property, to provide for the future extension of a street onto this property. Deceleration lanes at street and access points, per Master Street Plan, are required. The additional right-of-way for deceleration lanes should be 12 feet behind the curb, as a minimum; Minor Arterials require 2 April 25, 1996 HDIVI ION ITEM NO. 3 (C,'Qnt. ) FILE No. 5-1073-A 15 feet behind curbs. Chenal Parkway is a Principal Arterial. The intersection of the planned drive which is to circle the lake to the north of Systems Dr. is to intersect -Systems Dr. at the same point as the intersection of the new street south of Systems Drive with Systems Drive. (Note: The proposed private street which is to circle the lake has not been approved by Public Works.) Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. Contact USAGE-LRD for approval. A development permit will be required. The Corp. has studied the reach beyond the limit of the detailed study. The applicant must provide evidence that Corps. FIS data is being used and continue Zone AE through the lake and triple pipe culvert to join FIRM/FIS data on the north side of the property. This is required to be reflected on the preliminary plat. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Company noted. that 1.5 foot easements will be required along the Kirk Road and Systems Dr. frontages of Lots 5 and 8, along the south boundary of Lot 8, and along the east and south boundaries of Lot 7. Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a front footage charge of $15/foot on Chenal. Parkway and an acreage charge of $304/acre apply. A water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. Little Rock wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, is required. The Fire Department approved the plat. D. I E LE AAL TECHNICAL DESI The access from/onto Chenal Parkway at the south boundary of the tract, along the south boundary line of Lot 6, is, in effect, a boundary street. Sec. 31-201.(h) states: "New boundary streets shall be avoided, except where (they are) a requirement of the Master Street Plan...." "The Planning Commission may authorize a new boundary street when the subdivider proposes to dedicate the entire right-of-way and construct all the required improvements." The applicant reports that the owner of the property south of the tract is 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIDI ITEM n FILE 107 -A unwilling to participate in boundary street improvements along the common property line, therefore, the applicant seeks approval to construct one-half street improvements along this property line. The applicant explains that, when the property to the south is developed, access will be required at the "land line": where the median cut has been constructed. When this property is developed, the 900 turn will, the developer explains, become the "T" intersection required by Public Works. Sec. 31-201(h) states that- "In no case shall a subdivider retain a parcel of land lying between a newly created boundary street and a former property line, the purpose of which would be to deny access by abutting owners." As meetings are held with the owner of the property to the south (who, reportedly, is unwilling to participate in dedication or construction of the southern boundary street) and with staff concerning the design of this street, this provision of the Regulations must be kept in mind. It may be necessary to address this prohibition, depending upon the design of the street which is ultimately arrived at. The key phrase here appears to be "the purpose of which would be to deny access by abutting owners". If this is addressed to assure access to the abutting property, the prohibition may be moot. The remaining issue, then, is the extent of the dedication and improvements, since the Regulations require full dedication and construction; not half -street right-of-- way dedication and. improvements. The applicant needs to explain the proposed phasing of the development. on Systems Dr., just east of the existing construction site, a "Phase Line" is shown. (It is recalled that the applicant, when the original preliminary plat was approved, did not want to deal with rebuilding the dam and building the roadway on top of the dam with the first phase; therefore, the initial phase stopped short of the dam.) At the east end of Systems Dr., it says "Limits of Phase I Construction". This needs to be clarified. The plat shows the required one-half street construction for Kirk Rd. along the east boundary of Lot 8. Although Lot 3 is not included within the boundary of the revised preliminary plat, the developer needs to be aware that one- half boundary street dedication of right-of-way and street improvements will be required with Lot 3 development. There are minor deficiencies in the plat: the names of owners of all abutting lands are not shown; the zoning classifications within the plat boundary and of abutting properties are not shown; curve data on streets is not provided; physical description of surveying monuments is not show; and, the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIO ITEM(Cont.)FILE -1 7 -A does not have the required verbiage. No preliminary Bill of Assurance has been provided. E. ANALYSIS: There are minor deficiencies in the submitted plan and required information. These need to be supplied by the project engineering firm. The project engineer has agreed to re -design the north -south commercial street to meet Public works requirements, and to eliminate the 900 turn in the roadway. This roadway will, instead of being a private street, as originally proposed, is to be a public street. It will intersect. Chenal Parkway at a point to take advantage of the existing median cut, but will curve northward from that point, producing a wedge of land between the street right--of-way and the abutting property to the south. The project engineer has indicated that access by the property owner to the south will be provided when that property owner commences development. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant meeting the Public works requirements for the north -south street design, and subject to remedying the deficiencies noted in the submitted information. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the "checklist•' and the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed revised preliminary plat. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, reported on the Public works comments, and discussed in detail the issue of the 900 turn in the commercial street. Staff discussed the prohibition on private street connecting two public streets and serving areas of over 6 acres. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the issues raised with the applicant. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that all issues with Public works have been resolved; that the north -south commercial street was changed to a public street, meeting the Traffic Engineer's requirements for curvature and its intersection with Chenal Parkway; and, that deceleration lanes are to be provided, as required. Staff 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (-Cont.-) FILE NO.: 5-1073-A pointed out that the revised plat shows a "narrow strip of land" between the north -south commercial street (at its intersection with Chenal Parkway), and the former property line of the tract, but that the applicant is providing an access easement from the street to the property line to permit the abutting property to take access to this street when this property to the south is developed. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, as amended, and subject to the Public Works requirements, and approval of a variance from the restriction which prohibits "a narrow strip of land" between a right-of-way line and the former property line, -the purpose of which is to deny access to an abutting property", since there is no restriction on access by the abutting property owner. The preliminary plat, as amended, and subject to the Public Works requirements, and the variance to permit the location of the street at its intersection with Chenal Parkway to leave the "narrow strip of land" were included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and were approved, with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 6 April 25, 1996 ITEM 4 FILE O.: S-10 4 1N *. ZOEL SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATIO%j: On the east side of Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway Ill (north of the Alexander City Limits), approximately 0.2 Haile south of I-30. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick ALAN J. AND MARIE ZOELLNER MCGETRICR ENGINEERING 5625 Bradley Blvd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22311 Little Rock, AR 72211 (703) 8201-5934 223-9900 AREA: 10.06 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW -STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS 'BRACT: 41.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: 1. waiver from the requirement to dedicate additional right- of-way along Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111. 2. waiver from the requirement to provide one-half Master Street Plan improvements along the Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111 frontage of the subdivision. 3. Waiver- from the requirement to provide all-weather surfacing for the drive approaches to the two existing drives and one proposed drive from the Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway Ill pavement to the subdivision boundary/edge of the highway right-of-way. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicants Have purchased the 10± acre tract, and propose to construct their home and a large barn on the property. There are two existing homes on the tract (along the roadway frontage) which are to be rent homes; and, in order to be able to build another home on the site, a three lot subdivision is proposed. The applicants propose separating off lots for each of the two existing homes; Lots 1 and 3 being approximately 11/4 acres in area. Lot 2, occupying the remainder of the 10 acres, is to be April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1094 the applicant's homestead. This lot has a large pond located on it, and the home is to overlook it. The applicants have been issued, from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, a driveway permit for Lot 3, and a gravel drive was approved. Noting that the two existing driveways are gravel, and the approval of the Highway Department, the applicants seek a waiver from the requirement to provide an all-weather driving surface on that portion of the three driveways which is on public property. The applicants also note that there is a 15 foot wide Wastewater Utility easement and a water easement which cross "the middle of our property" , and request a waiver the requirement to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Alexander Rd. They note further, that there are no additional utilities to be added to the current right--of-way as a result of their subdivision. The applicants also seek a waiver from the requirement to provide one-half boundary street improvements along Alexander Rd., since the proposed subdivision is for their own benefit in building their own home. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planing Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and a recommendation for approval of three waivers is requested: a waiver from the requirement to dedicated additional right-of-way along Alexander Rd.; a waiver from the requirement to provide an all-weather driving surface on the drive approaches on public right-of-way for the three drives off Alexander Rd.; and, a waiver form the required to provide one-half boundary street improvements to Alexander Rd. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property has two homes located on it; one at the northwest corner of the tact; the other at the southwest corner. There is a large pond located along the north boundary of the site. A large drainage ditch and designated floodway bound the tract along the southeast boundary, and the floodplain encroaches onto the site at the eastern edge of the plat. The topography ranges from a high point of 324 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the common property line between Lots 1 and 2, to an elevation of approximately 310 along the southeast property line of Lots 2 and 3. (The ditch which lies in the floodway drops below this level.) The site is zoned R-2, as is all surrounding property. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 4 LQont . ) FILE NO.: S-1094 Alexander Rd., along the west the western City Limits line, Saline County line. C. ENGINEERIXQIUTILIT'Y COMMENTS: Public works Comments: boundary of the site, is both as well as the Pulaski County- Alexander Rd. is classified as a Minor Arterial, and 90 feet of right-of-way is required, as well as widening of the street to provide 30 feet of roadway from the centerline. Relocation of City -owned utilities is required as part of this requirement. A sidewalk along the frontage is required. (Public works notes that, because only one home is proposed to be built on the property, with two already existing, Public Works will support a waiver of the roadway improvements until the property is rezoned for some other use. A condition of a recommendation for approval of the waiver will be the provision of paved aprons from the existing roadway to, at least the right-of-way lines at the existing and for the new driveways. Gravel drives extending onto the right-of-way is, noted Public Works, unacceptable.) Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. A development permit is required. The Corps of Engineers must be contacted prior to any modifications to the pond. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. will required 15 foot easements along the south and east lot lines of Lot 1 and the south lot line of Lot 2. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that an 8 inch water main is available to provide water service to the property. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that there is an 8" sewer main crossing Lots 1 and 2. An easement must be dedicated along this main. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-232(b) states that: "No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide...." The applicant requested a variance from this restriction, noting that the 283.3 feet of frontage for Lot 2 will permit the depth of this lot to be 849.9 feet, and its total depth is 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIV'I$ ION ITEM No.: 4 _ (Cont.) .._. FILE No • S-1094 1029.37 feet. A variance of 179.47 feet, if the regulation were applied, would be needed. with the excessive size of the "lot" (being over 7% acres in size?), this may not be what the ordinance envisioned when it limited the lot width to depth ratio to 1:3. The Commission needs to determine if such a variance is needed, and, if the regulation is applicable in this case, needs to make a recommendation to the Hoard of Directors. Sec. 31-241 states: "Whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way," Alexander Rd. is "partially dedicated and constructed." The applicant has asked for a wavier form the requirement to dedicated right - of --way and the construction requirements. The regulation also requires specified all --weather aprons for drives on the public right--of-way. The applicant requests a wavier of this requirement, as well. Unless the applicant proposes to file a final plat on the entire 3-lot subdivision at one time, a phasing plan needs to be supplied. (It may be to the applicant's best interests, due to street frontage assessments and driveway apron improvements, to final plat only Lot 2.) E. ANALYSI,: The technical requirements noted as deficient at the Subdivision Committee meeting have been substantially remedied. There are only minor deficiencies remaining; e.g., the physical description of the surveying monuments is to be noted. The applicant has expressed consternation that the City is imposing requirements for Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway Ill in excess of those imposed by the State. The applicants expressed frustration that the State has no requirement for additional right--of-way or roadway improvements, and has issued a permit for an additional gravel drive (with gravel extending onto the public right- of-way). The Master Street Plan, however, is the overriding regulation, and these requirements are applicable to all public streets within the City Limits. Public Works recommends strongly that the right-of-way be required to be dedicated and that, at least, the all-weather aprons be provided on the right -of --way for all three gravel drives. (Public works notes that gravel migrates onto and is carried onto the roadway, and that driving over the edge of the pavement is breaking down the edge of the paving.) As far as the half street improvements, Public Works has noted a willingness to support a waiver of the requirements at this 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.• S-1094 time, but conditions their support of the waiver on an agreement on the part of the applicant to dedicate right-of- way and provide the required aprons. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant complying with Public Works requirements for dedication of right-of-way and providing required aprons for the three gravel drives. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline and a copy of the Checklist to Mr. McGetrick and to the Committee members. Staff outlined the applicants' request and discussed the issues noted in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the public Works staff, discussed the various Public Works concerns; e.g., the Master Street Plan issues and the floodway/floodplain issues. Staff discussed the requirement for the lot width to depth ratio not exceeding 1:3, and indicated that staff did not feel that the ratio requirement is applicable to acreage, but was intended to regulate standard residential subdivision lots. The Committee, following the discussion of the issues, forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Bobby Sims, of the Staff, presented the item for the Commission's consideration. He stated that again this item is before the Commission on the regular agenda for one reason. That is the applicant proposes a requirement imposed by the Master Street Plan and Public Works. Sims pointed out that he had had a number of conversations with the owner of this property who lives in the state of Virginia. That owner has indicated that they oppose building these improvements because they had purchased the land a number of years ago and considered it a rural location. They felt like the kind of improvement required is inappropriate. Sims stated that the owner had determined that they wanted to build gravel driveways to serve this property and had received approval from the State Highway Department for doing so since Alexander Road at this point is a state highway. Sims stated that the conflict in requirements came in when they approached the City for approval of their preliminary plat and learned that the city's requirements were going to be somewhat different in posing a surfacing on the driveways from the edge of the existing highway onto their property, plus the dedication of additional right-of-way to the Master Street Plan. He stated 5 April 25, 1996 aUBDIVISION ITEM 4 on FILE NO.: S-1094 they had pointed out to him that other driveways in the area in relationships such as we are dealing with here are rural in nature and are gravel driveways. Sims stated that the owner indicated to him that they did not want to surrender the additional 5 feet of right-of-way because that would remove from them 5 feet of their property from their usage. Public Works was on record as stating that they would support the waiver of the highway improvements and they wanted to gain the 5 feet of right-of-way and require the driveways to be constructed to a hard surface from the edge of the pavement to the property line. David Scherer, of Public Works, came forward and presented its position relative to these exceptions from standards. Mr. Scherer pointed out that if this was a larger plat with a number of lots to be developed in here, then Public Works would feel compelled to require full improvements on dedication. In this instance, there is only one single family dwelling to be constructed in as much as the other two lots will be occupied by the existing dwellings that are in place. But in every instance, the City protects the Master Street Plan right-of-way by gaining the dedication for future improvements through other means. Mr. Scherer then discussed the reason why the City requires the hard surfacing from the edge of the roadway to the property line. This has to do with gravel driveways tracking rocks onto the asphalt roadway and damaging the street. The concrete or asphalt paving to the property line offers an opportunity for cars to lose those rocks before they enter the street. in a response to a question by Commissioner Ball, Scherer pointed out that the eventual widening of the roadway would tear out these asphalt or concrete driveways and rebuild, but, that is a unknown point in time. He felt it would be sometime before this is a 4 or 5 lane arterial street. A brief discussion followed involving the type and cost involved in doing the improvement to the driveways. David Scherer pointed out also that it is not only the driveway to the new house which is an issue, but this is a 3-lot plat at this time being created out of a single ownership. Therefore, the two existing driveways should also be improved. Pat McOetrick, the engineer for the project, Came forward and offered comments on his applicant's position relative to the cost and the type of construction. Once again, the Highway Department has approved these as gravel drives. He again restated that his applicant is also opposed to dedicating the additional right-of- way. 6 April 25, 1996 UBDTVISIQN ITEM NO.;_ 4 (Cont.) _.. FILE No.: S-1094 Commissioner Brandon pointed out, that, although it was not the commission's business as to the composition of the driveway from the property line to the carport. It has certainly appeared to be appropriate to place the city standard's hard surfacing between the property line and the edge of the roadway. The question then moved to how much cost is actually involved here for the three driveways. Mr. McGetrick estimated after some conversation with Commissioner Putnam that the driveways would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about $750 in cost. This being somewhat close to the Public works' estimate which was $1,000 dollars. This was an estimate per driveway for the three drives. A commissioner posed a question as to what the difference was between the State Highway Department's requirement and the City's. Bobby Sims, of the Staff, responded by stating that the ours are urban standard construction requirements that deal with different traffic movements, volumes and relationships. The Highway Department typically looks at their roadways as being rural in nature. David Scherer pointed out that the state would not approve driveways for commercial development inside the city without his stamp of approval. He stated that he assumed it was treated somewhat different with residential. He said this did not come through his office. The discussion of this issue moved to the process for obtaining the improvement when it occurred. This was identified as being a final plat issue and the various commitments would be made at that time to make the construction. A brief discussion then occurred in which Bobby Sims, of the Staff, and several commissioners discussed the value of improvements being placed on the property. These were identified as being significant structures with no value attached at this time. A discussion then followed a question by a commissioner as to whether or not these improvements could be deferred. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that he was not sure as to how you would defer such improvements and to what time or specific date you would tie it. If they are in their house and the house has been built and they are in place and there is no dollar amount held in -lieu by the city to insure the installation. How do you obtain enforcement? At this point, it appeared that the Chairman was ready for a motion on this issue. The City Attorney representative, Cynthia Dawson, commented that the Commission should remember her previous caution about placing motions in the affirmative which is to say a motion to approve something as oppose to deny something. Therefore, votes to deny 7 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVIS2ON ITEM N 4 QQont. FILE NO.; 5-1094 something in a motion would not actually approve an application or a waiver. Bobby Sims, of the Staff, reminded the Commission that they should think about two motions on this issue. One to deal with the preliminary plat absent the waivers and the second one to deal with the requested waivers. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat. This motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The preliminary plat is approved. A commissioner then made a motion that the waivers as requested be approved. After a lengthy discussion of the process needed to deal with three waivers which apparently might produce different votes. The Commission determined to deal with them as a separate vote on each of the three. A motion was then made to waive the right-of-way dedication along Alexander Road. This motion produced a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays, and 1 absent. Thereby denying the right-of-way waiver. A second motion was made to approve the waiver of street improvements along Alexander Road. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays. and 1 absent. The waiver is granted for street improvements_ A third motion was made to waive the driveway apron construction requirements from the property line to the edge of the pavement. This motion produced a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays, and 1 absent. Therefore, the driveway waiver is denied. 0 April 25, 1996 ITEM FILE O.•_$-1100 NAME: CAPITOL LAKES ESTATES --- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Rd., beginning approximately 0.9 mile south of the Ranis Rd. intersection, extending southward along Cooper Orbit Rd. approximately 0..5 mile to the north boundary of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision, and extending northward to the north shore of Spring Lake. DEVELOPER: E001NEER ; William L. Dean CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC. CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 600 Pine Forest Dr., Suite Ill 15104 Cantrell Rd. Maurmelle, AR 72113 Little Rock, AR 72212 868-7717 AREA: 190.624 ACRES NUMBER QF LOTS: 318 FT. NEWSTREET: 20■640 ZONING: R--2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family & Multi - Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Ellis Mountain (18) CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF PRATE: A revised and corrected preliminary plat, to be submitted to staff within 8 days of the Subdivision Committee Meeting, making the changes discussed with the project engineer at this meeting, was not submitted as required by the applicant within the time period allotted. (Staff permitted an extension of the 8-day time frame to 11 days, the Monday following the Friday cut-off date.) There was, therefore, insufficient time for staff to review the revised plat and to prepare the staff report for the agenda, and still meet the printing and distribution schedule for the agendas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Bill Dean, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and presented an overview of the proposal. Staff presented the discussion outline and the "Preliminary Plat Checklist" to the Committee members, noting that Mr. Dean has gotten his copy the previous day. The Planning April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5--(Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1100 staff discussed the various deficiencies noted in, primarily, the discussion outline regarding the failure of the proposed plat to meet a number of requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members inquired of Mr. Dean if he would be able to make the needed corrections in the plat and meet the deadline for re -submittal of the drawings. Mr. Dean responded that he could meet the deadline, and would have the revised plat to staff by Friday, April 12th. With the assurance that the plat would be amended to comply with the Regulations, the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIN: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that required revised drawings had not been submitted in sufficient time to include this item on the agenda and still meet the word processing, printing, and distribution schedule to distribute the printed agendas to Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staff recommended deferral of the item until the June 6, 1996 Subdivision Agenda, with the condition that the revised preliminary plat be reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on May 16, 1996. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 14 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO. 6 _ _ - FILE -N O.: Z-3454-E NAME: OTTER CREEK VILLAGE MINT -WAREHOUSES -- SHORT-FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet west of Stagecoach Rd./Arkansas State Highway 5), and approximately 0.1 mile south of Otter Creek Parkway. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Tommy Hodges Pat MGGetrick STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211 455--5557 223-9900 AREA: 4.03 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PR.QPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse, Office - Showroom and Warehouse, and General Office PLANNING -DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES RE E TED: None BACKGR,QUND: The lot on which the Mini -Warehouse development is to take place is Lot 3 of the Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision, the Preliminary Plat of which is being reviewed for approval as Item 1 of the Planning Commission agenda of April 25, 1996. Approval of access being provided by an access easement and a private street from Stagecoach Rd, to the lot is addressed in the approval of the Preliminary Plat. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a 4.03 acre lot for a mini -warehouse; office -showroom and warehouse; and general office facility. Lining the "front" of the development are two buildings, totaling 10,400 square feet, to be used as office and office -showroom and warehouse facilities; the remainder of the site is to be devoted to mini -warehousing. The 7 mini -warehouse buildings have a total square footage of 40,800 square feet. Parking for 36 vehicles is provided in the front parking lot. The rear/west 174 feet of the property is designated for "open April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: _, 6 (Cont.) FILE storage" and as an "expansion area." The solid "rear" walls (those backing up to the property line) of the mini -warehouse buildings and the solid "side" walls (those abutting the property line) of the office/office-showroom and warehouse buildings form the land use buffer/screening device between the site and the abutting properties. The remainder of the mini -warehouse portion of the site is fenced. Access to the site is by way of a private street in an access easement extending from Stagecoach Rd. across Lot 4 to the east. There is also access from the "front" parking lot onto the adjoining shopping center parking lot. A. PRQPOSAL/RE,❑EST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Hoard of Directors is requested for a mini - warehouse; office -showroom and warehouse; and general office PCD B. EXItSTING CONDIT_ IONS: The site is undeveloped and is wooded. The topography has about a 6-foot rise, front/east to rear/west, across the site. The existing zoning of the tract is C-2, and is part of a larger C-2 zoned tract to the north. The lot standing between the subject lot and Stagecoach Rd, is zoned C-3. Property to the south is zoned C-2 (except for the last/west 100 feet or so, which abuts R-2 property). Property to the west is zoned MF-24, and is the site of an apartment project. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The requirements to be imposed in Item 1, the requested approval of the Preliminary Plat which includes the subject site, are applicable to the subdivision, and, thereby, to this particular lot. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. USACH-LRD must approve the plans. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power and Light Company noted that 10 foot ease- ments will be required along all four sides of Lot 3. Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. 2 April 25, 1996 SUEDIVISZ,Q ITEM FILE N Z 4 4-E Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre applies. No connection will be permitted to the 16" main which is on the west side of Stagecoach Rd. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The Fire Department noted that a fire hydrant needs to be located at the northwest corner of the office building, to the south of the driveway. D. ISSUES/LEgAL/TE HNICAL/DESIQN; No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. Staff has developed the "Statement of Proposal" solely from the information shown on the site plan. The Project Narrative is a "statement describing the character of the development....". It must be provided to show the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It needs to describe the types of uses anticipated. (Mini - warehouse, office -showroom and warehouse. general office are suggested; but is a residence for manager anticipated? The plan indicates "open Storage at the rear/west area of the site, but there is no explanation, or limitation, on what this entails.) Quantitative date needs to include the proposed building coverage. The development schedule, indicating he approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, needs to be included. No PCD application has been filled out. The "Information Sheet" has not been furnished. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished, No provision for dumpsters has been made. Hours of servicing any provided dumpsters needs to be established, especially since there are residential uses to the west of the site. The Plans Review Specialist comments. The Landscape ordinance will require a 6 foot wide landscape strip be provided along the east lot line [between the front/east parking lot and the abutting 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3454-E Lot 4). The Landscape Ordinance requires a 3 foot wide landscape strip between the public parking areas and the building; however, there is some flexibility in the application of this provision. Areas set aside for land use buffers comply with Ordinance requirements. A 6 foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen this site from residential properties to the south and west. The south facade of the south mini -warehouse building, if no openings are to be provided, will qualify as this screen along the length of this building, as will the office building, again, if there are no openings in the south facade. Screening must extend to the west property line. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant must present a full discussion on the items which would normally be included in the "Project Narrative"/•Cover Letter especially regarding, specifically, the types of uses anticipated, and must deal with the uses proposed in the "Open Storage" area of the site. Since this area abuts a residential use area, operation and "running" of vehicles and motors, dumpster servicing, etc., require limitations be imposed. Complying with the Landscape Ordinance regarding the landscape strip along the east lot line, and the provisions of the Landscape Ordinance relating to the landscape strip between the building and the public parking area must be addressed. The Subdivision Regulations require the applicant to provide a parking analysis with the application. This is not provided. It is assumed, however, that 36 parking spaces meet Ordinance requirements for 10,400 square feet of office use and 40,800 square feet of mini -warehouse use. Normally, office uses require 1 parking space for each 400 square feet of building area. If the office building is totally devoted to office use (without any use of the building for showroom or warehousing), then the required parking would be 26 spaces. Warehousing uses require 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area. In this case, 25 additional spaces is required. Total requirements, then, would be 101 spaces. Generally, however, it is taken into account that the "warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini -warehouse buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. If this interpretation is permitted in 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 6 (Cont,) _FILE NO. Z-3454-E this case, then, even if the office building is totally office, there is sufficient parking. The Planning staff notes that the project is in the otter Creek District; and that the adopted plan recommends "Community Shopping" for the area in which the subject site is situated. Being part of an overall shopping center development, the proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted plan. There is no land use issue. F. STAFF RE MME ATI Staff recommends approval of the PCD, subject to the applicant providing the information noted as deficient, and subject to meeting the landscaping and land use buffer requirements. SUBDIV16ZQN COMMITTEE MME T: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed PCD site plan, and discussed the issues with Mr, McGetrick, Mr. McGetrick reported that he would make the needed changes in the drawing and would Supply staff with revised drawings and information, as required. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING CfJMMISSION ACTIQN: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that the Public Works issues were dealt with in the approval of the Preliminary Plat, with no other Public Works issues remaining to be resolved. Staff reported that the Neighborhoods and Planing issues were resolved; the project narrative and PCD application form having been submitted; the area designated as "Open Storage" at the rear/west end of the site having been dealt with in the cover letter indicating that: a) a phase II plan providing for the extension of the mini - warehouse buildings into this area and turning so that the rear of the buildings form a buffer along the west property line, and b) the use of the area as "Open Storage" restricting the operation of motors or engines; the landscaping requirement along the interior lot line having been met; and, the dumpster location having been designated, with "daylight" hours for servicing being specified. The item was recommended by Staff to be included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 14 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and © abstentions, 5 April 25, 1996 ITEM 7 FILE NO.: Z-4 -c NAME: KANIS MINI -STORAGE -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the south side of Kanis Rd., approximately 0.1 mile west of Bowman Rd. ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick UNITED PROPERTIES MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln. Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 223-9900 AREA: 5.76 ACRES UMBER QF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Mini -warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Ellis Mountain (18) CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: Planning Commission review of the original PCD on the site was conducted on May 13, 1986, with the PCD being established by the Board of Directors on June 3, 1986, in Ordinance No. 15,105. This action resulted from a request to add buildings to an already existing mini -warehouse facility. The facility had been in existence prior to being annexed into the City, and was a "non -conforming" use. The area involved was 2.57 acres. There were 5 existing buildings, with a total of 37,275 square feet of mini -warehouse area. Two additional buildings, with a total floor area of 16,140 square feet was proposed at that time. Dedication of 10 additional feet of right-of-way along Kanis Rd. was provided by Quitclaim deed. Subsequently, on April 7, 1992, an amendment to the 1986-approved PCD was proposed. This amendment added a 2.65 acre tract south of the originally included property, and added 5 more buildings totaling 31,620 square feet. Provision was made at that time to add the area to the east of this additional tract, out to Bowman Rd., a 1.49 tract, as future development area. Based on the Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat of the 5.22 site, a final plat was filed on August 10, 1992. This plat shows an 80 foot right-of-way for Danis Rd. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cgnt.) FILE N4._: Z-4653=C, Included in the plat file for the final plat of the 5.22 acre "Lot 1" tract is a letter from the City Engineer returning the proposed Quitclaim deed for an additional 5 feet of required right-of-way for Kanis Rd., rejecting its wording which required the City to rebuild the existing fence along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site if the City required its removal from the right-of-way. The City Engineer suggested that the property owner apply for a franchise for the continued use of right-of-way for the fence, but indicated that the owner would be responsible for removal of the fence if the area were needed for future street improvements. There is nothing after this date to indicate that the Quitclaim deed was amended and submitted (and filed) as required, nor that the franchise was requested. The added area to the lot on which the Mini -Storage development is to take place is Lot 1R of the United Properties Subdivision, the Preliminary Plat of which is being reviewed for approval as Item 2 of the Planning Commission agenda of April 25, 1996. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is the addition of a 102.27 foot by 229.64 foot (0.54 acre) area to the approved PCD site along the east boundary of the southern tract, with the construction of a 11,900 square foot mini -storage building on this added land. with the previous approval of 85,035 square feet of mini -storage building area, the total square footage in increased to 96,935. No other changes to the site are proposed. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Hoard of Directors is requested for an amended PD-C. H. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is developed. Most of the area designated at Lot 1R is the location of the Kanis Mini -Storage facility. The added portion of Lot 1R is part of a residential lot which has had a residential structure located on it for decades. The topography of the site rises from an elevation along Bowman Rd. of 432 feet MSL (dean Sea Level.), to an elevation of 480 at the west edge of the property. There are existing retaining walls along the west property line and at the southeast corner of Lot 1 to permit the mini -warehouse development of the site. There is a 50 foot buffer designated along the west property line of the 1992--added tract (which abuts residential lots), and a 20 foot buffer along the south boundary of the tract. 2 April 25; 1996 SUBDIVISION 7(Cont.FILE N Z-4 -C The existing zoning of the property is PCD for the original Lot 1, and R-2 for the added area. To the south and to the west of the 1992-added tract is R-2 zoned property. To the west of the original 1986 tract is "Bank and Business Forms" in a PCD. At the southwest corner of Kanis Rd. and Bowman Rd. are non -conforming commercial uses in an R-2 zoned area. The abutting property to the east of the southern tract is $-2 however, approximately 300 feet of this 400 foot frontage is included in an application for zoning PCD as Item 7 in the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. Across Kanis Rd. to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: The replat of Lot 1 necessitates dedication to Master Street Plan standards of the right-of-way for and Master Street Plan pavement widening on Kanis Rd. An additional 6 feet of widening is required for Kanis Rd., but an "In -Lieu' contribution versus construction of the street improvements is recommended at this time. The dedication of the additional right-of-way is to include relocation of City owned utilities. It is recommended that the applicant apply for a franchise for the fence which is located on the City right-of- way. (It is located within 35 feet of the centerline of Kanis Rd.) Relocation of the fence will be at the applicant's expense when Kanis Rd. is widened. The required right-of-way is 45 feet from centerline of Kanis Rd. for this Minor Arterial street. A grading permit is required. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a pro-rata frontage charge of $12/foot on Kanis Rd. applies. On -site fire protection may be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer is located along Kanis Rd. and Bowman Rd. Sewer is also located at the southwest corner of Lot 1R.. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. The Fire Department approved the plan, subject to the applicant conferring with the Fire Department regarding increased fire protection for the site. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4653-C D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. Staff has developed the "Statement of Proposal" solely from the information shown on the site plan. The Project Narrative is a "statement describing the character of the development....". It must be provided to show the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It needs to describe the types of uses anticipated. (Mini - storage is suggested by the title; but is an office and/or residence for a manager existing or anticipated?) Quantitative data needs to include the proposed building coverage. The development schedule, indicating he approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, needs to be included. No PD-C application for has been submitted. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. No provision for dumpsters has been made. Also, if dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and established, especially with the proximity of residential property to the west and south. The Plans Review Specialist comments: The proposed building setback is sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas to the east and south. Bringing the PUD site into conformance with the Landscape and Buffer Ordinance will be required with the amendment of the existing PUD and the extension of the land area of the PUD. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant must present a full discussion on the items which would normally be included in the -Project Narrative"/ "Cover Letter", especially regarding, specifically, the types of uses anticipated; i.e., any office or residence use of the site. Since this area abuts residential use areas, limitation should be imposed on dumpster servicing and on hours of operation. Complying with the Landscape Ordinance must be addressed. 4 April 25, 1996 SUHDIVISIQPi IT_ Q • 7(Cont,FILE : Z--4653- The Subdivision Regulations require the applicant to provide a parking analysis with the application. This is not provided, nor is any parking denoted. Warehousing uses require 5 spaces, as a basis, plus 1 space for each 2000 square feet of warehouse area up to 50,000 square feet, then 1 space for each 10,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet. In this case, 30 spaces is required. Generally, however, it is taken into account that the "warehouse" parking is provided in front of and along the drives abutting the mini - storage buildings, and only the 5 basic spaces are imposed. If this interpretation is permitted in this case, then, there is sufficient parking, except for any needed parking adjacent to any office or residential use associated with the development. The Planning staff notes that the project is in the Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone". There is no land use issue to be addressed. F. ,STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PD-C, subject to the applicant: 1) complying with the Public works and land- scaping requirements; 2) a presentation narrative on the uses existing and/or anticipated on the site; 33 limitations being set on the hours of operation and for any dumpster servicing; and, 4) parking concerns being addressed. SUHDIVISI N MMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed PD-C site plan, and discussed the issues with Mr. McGetrick. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed with Mr. McGetrick the right-of-way and street improvements issues, as well as the fence issue along Kanis Rd. Mr. McGetrick reported that he would make the needed changes in the drawing and would supply staff with revised drawings and. information, as required. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for the public hearing. 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION IT 7 FILE Z-4 -C PLANNING C4)MMISSIQU ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that all Public works issues are dealt with in the approval of the Preliminary Plat; that the issue of the requirement by Public Works for payment of "In --Lieu" for boundary street improvements along Kanis Rd. is a waiver request which is a result of the requirements imposed on the Preliminary Plat. The waiver request from the boundary street requirements will go on to the Board of Directors as part of the Preliminary Plat. approval. Staff reported that the Neighborhoods and Planning issues have been resolved, with the cover letter having been furnished; with the indication that, in the existing mini -storage building which abuts Kanis Rd., there is an office and its location having been shown; and, that landscaping is to be upgraded, as required. Staff reported that the applicant maintains that there is sufficient parking on the site, and staff can support this position. With staffs recommendation for approval, the item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, subject to approval of the Preliminary Plat and of the Board of Directors approval of the Kanis Rd. waiver for payment of the "In -Lieu". The item was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. Staff reported that there are no Land Use Plan issues. 0 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 -- - _ FILE NO.: Z-4653-D NAME: UNITED PROPERTIES SUBDIVISION, LOT 2 -- SHORT --FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the west side of Bowman Rd., approximately 400 feet south of Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: W Cam! Pat McGetrick UNITED PROPERTIES MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 11225 Huron Ln. Suite 200 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 223-9900 AREA: 0.95 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS_TRAOT: 42.07 PROPOSED USES: Ellis Mountain (18) VARIANCES REQUESTED: None General office and Enclosed retail uses The lot on which the "Office/Retail" development is to take place is Lot 2 of the United Properties Subdivision, the Preliminary Plat of which is being reviewed for approval as Item 2 of the Planning Commission agenda of April 25, 1996. STATEMENT OF PRQPQEAL:. The applicant proposes the development of a 0.95 acre tract for "Office/Retail" uses. Proposed is construction of a 10,000 square foot building and the provision of 31 parking spaces. The required dedication of right-of-way for and constriction of improvements for Bowman Rd. are proposed, including construction of the required sidewalk. Sections of retaining walls will be needed to be constructed at the northwest and southwest corners of the property. A. PRQPOSALI REQUESfi : Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NCl.: 8 -(.Cont. ) _ FILE HQ.: Z-4.653-D B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is zoned residential, and has had a residential structure located on iT for decades. The topography rises from an elevation of approximately 310 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level), to over -347 feet at the northwest corner, a differential of 37 feet. (Thus the requirement for construction of sections of retaining walls on the site.) To the north of the site is a "non -conforming" commercial use in an R-2 zoned area. To the west is the PCD site for the Kanis Mini -Storage facility. To the south is R-2 zoned property. Across Bowman Rd. is R-2 zoned property (but with the non -conforming skating rink use located there), and, across Bowman Rd., northeast of the tract, is C-3 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments: Lot 2 requires dedication of right-of-way for Bowman Rd. to minor arterial standards and one-half street widening, including relocation of City -owned utilities. An "In -Lieu" is not recommended for this frontage. This widening will allow for vehicles to get off the traveled lanes prior to accessing the drive. The entrance drive should be relocated to the south at least 25 feet from the property line so that trucks can access the dumpster which is assumed to be located in an area to the south of the buildings. Widen the drive to 27 feet. A grading permit is required. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will required a 5 foot ease- ment along the north, west, and south lot lines of Lot 2. Little Rock Water Works comments that a pro-rata frontage charge of $2.50/foot on Bowman Rd. applies. On -site fire protection may be required. Little Rock wastewater Utility comments that sewer is located along Bowman Rd. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that there is concern regarding the lack of access to the rear of the building. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont') _ FILE Nfl • Z_-4653-D D. IOBVE../LEGALITECUR! ALIDESIGN; No "Project Narrative"/"Cover Letter" has been submitted. This is needed to relate the development rationale and to outline the development plan, proposed uses, hours of operation, lighting, signage, etc. It is a "statement. describing the character of the development...." It needs to describe the types of uses requested ("Office" and "Retail" is not a sufficient description), as well as establish a ratio for the mixture of the various uses. The development schedule, indicating The approximate date when construction can be expected to begin and be completed, needs to be included. The building height needs to be noted. No PCD application form has been filled out. Information on the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, including materials and techniques used for screening, fencing, etc., has not been furnished. A general schematic landscaping plan has not been furnished. Provision for any dumpsters must be made. If dumpsters are to be provided, the hours of servicing needs to be discussed and. established. The Regulations require the applicant to submit a parking analysis with the application, to address the adequacy of the parking to be provided. This analysis has not been furnished. Sec. 36-502 requires, for "business and professional office" uses, 1 parking space for each 400 square feet of building area. This section requires, for "general business and retail sales"", 1 space for each 300 square feet of building area. Since the building is 10,000 square feet, if it is totally general business and retail sales, it would require 33 parking spaces, if it is totally "office", 25 spaces would be required. The applicant proposes providing 31 parking spaces; therefore, if only a small percentage of the building is "office" use, the parking requirements will be satisfied. The ratio of the mixture of the office versus the retail uses must be established by the applicant to assure compliance with the parking regulations. The Site Plan Review Specialist Comments: The building setback is sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas to the south. A 6 foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. are 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 8 _ (Cant._ FILE NO.; Z-4653-D required to screen this site from residential properties to the south. The Landscape ordinance requires a 3 foot wide landscape strip between the public parking areas and the building; however, there is some flexibility in the application of this provision. Dumpster locations are required to be shown, and dumpsters must be enclosed on three sides with a minimum 8 foot tall masonry wall or wooden fence. E. ANALYSIS• The project engineer has submitted revised drawings which are in substantial compliance with the regulations. The dumpster location and proposed fencing must, however, be shown. The primary deficiency is the absence of the required written documents, the "Project Narrative", or "Cover Letter" and the applcation form. The applicant must specifically note the uses, by zoning District definitions or classification, not just the generic "Office" and "Retail", as shown on the plan. The Planning staff notes that the site in the Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multi -Family" uses. During the review, staff reports, for a previous zoning case, staff recommended a change to "Transition. Zone" for this area. Such a change will result in their being no land use issue. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD, subject to the applicant defining the proposed uses and their "mix", showing the dumpster location and addressing the hours of servicing of the dumpster, and presenting the information normally contained in the required "Project Narrative"/ "Cover Letter" (e.g., signage, hours of operation, development schedule, etc.). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed PCD site plan, and discussed the issues with Mr. McGetrick. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, 4 April 25, 1995 SUBDIVISIO ITEM No. 8 (Coast. 1 FTLE I t3. Z 4653 D discussed with Mr. McGetrick the right-of-way and street improvements issues. Mr. McGetrick reported that he would make the needed changes in the drawing and would supply staff with revised drawings and information, as required. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLAMING C=ISSIQNACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) All Public works issues are resolved, except for the issue relating to the wavier request for payment of "In -Lieu" for boundary street improvements along Ranis Rd., which is part of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision. The Neighborhoods and Planning issues have been resolved, with the project narrative having been submitted which specifies that all 0-3 and C-1 "by right" uses are requested as allowable uses in the PCD; with the centers hours of operation are 7:00 AM to 5.00 PM; with lighting to be directed inward onto the site; with a single "center" sign, meeting the 0-3 zoning district regulations, to be installed; with the building height being one story; and, the dumpster location having been shown and its servicing time has been restricted to daylight hours. Staff reported that the ratio of general business and retail vs. general office uses is to be established as 3:4, so that at least 25% of the center is to be general office uses to Meet the parking requirements. Staff reported that the applicant has assured staff that the requirements of the Landscape and,Buffer ordinances are to be complied with. with staff' recommendation of approval, subject to the Board of Directors approval of a waiver of the boundary street improvements requirements attendant with the Preliminary Plat approval, the item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. Staff reported that there are no Land Use Issues. 5 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.; 9 FILE NO.; S-548-I SAME; CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension, approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd. and the Kroger Center. DEVELOPER- MCCASLIN DEVELOPMENT 5950 Berkshire Ln. Suite 800 LB 37 Dallas, TX 75225 (214) 696-8422 ENGINEER: Joe White WHITE -RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 39.32 ACRES NUMBER OF _LOTS: 1 FT. NEW -STREET: 3,500 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED -USES: Multi -Family Residential PILAMINg DISTRICT: River Mountain (1) CENSUS TRACT,: 42.05 VARIANCES REQTJESTED: None STATEMENT OF PRQPQhgAL: Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three- story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family building is to contain approximately 10,000 square feet per floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000 square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site from its -dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west boundary of the site.. No variances are requested. A. PR PO AL RE E T: Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan is requested. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIf}N ITEM NO. 9 Lc=t , ) FILE No. -5-54$ I B. EXISTING CQNDITI,¢NS The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded. The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the "dead=end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40 feet of rise. The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a pending applicant to be heard on May 9, 1996, for the rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise, all surrounding properties are zoned R-2 C. ENGINEERINQ,/UTILITY,CO ENTS: Public Works comments: The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan, with the location, width, intersections, curve radii, and grades conforming to City ordinances. The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width, minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be 27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the plans along these drives. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any land alteration. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement will be required around the full perimeter of the site. Southwestern Hell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be required to obtain water service to this project. on -site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension., with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVIgIDN ITEM No. 9 (Cont.�. FILE NO.: S-548-I The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to the fire hydrants. D. I E LE AL TE HNI AL DE I Sec. 31.13 requires "large-scale developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings ton a site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section". Because of the multiple buildings being constructed., the Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed site plan. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site ,plan review submittal indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family development and land use buffers are required. The topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this, but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with by the applicant and the Commission. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of all existing and proposed utility and street easements and all existing public improvements within the site be shown. The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street (shown as a "Future Public Street"} extends westward across the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made, and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the street. Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and parking areas is critical,. Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the site, showing the exact property lines, and including a statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not meet the requirements as such. The availability of public utilities has not been addressed. On -site fire hydrants have not been located and provided for. The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not been identified. 3 April 25, 1.996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 9 SCont.) ---FILE NO.; 5-548-I E. Sec. 35--502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes, that 1% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit. The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd. The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to provide for this extension, nor to build the street to collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the Planning and. Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given by the Planning Commission and Hoard of Directors, a change should be made. otherwise, conformance with the Master Street Plan is mandated. The Plans Review Specialist comments; The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient area for landscaping. The development will be required to comply with both the Land Use Huffer and Landscaping ordinances. ANALYgg The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation" of the roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super - elevation" means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by Public Works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public Works standards. Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be initiated by the applicant. The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs to be addressed. F. STAFF RE MME DATI Staff recommends approval of applicant complying with the street and drive standards. the site plan, subject to the Public Works requirements for 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO,: 9 (Con&,) FILE NO,: S-548 I SUBDIVISION „COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public 'Works staff, reported on the Public works comet nts, and discussed in detail the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west, as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information, indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing, P_LAMING COMMISiSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996 ) Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May 9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on the property which will be heard on that date. 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, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 April 25, 199+6 ITEM NO., 10 FILE O.: Z-34 4-F �,,,ME: OTTER CREEK VILLAGE -- REVISED ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Stagecoach Rd. and Otter Creek Parkway. DEVELOPER: E CINEER: Tommy Hodges Pat McGetrick STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-5557 223-9900 AREA: 8.54 ACRES NUMBER QFLOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED ,$ES: General Retail (Shopping Center) & C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES E E T D. None BACKGROUND: A Site Plan for the Otter Creek Village Shopping Center was reviewed and approved by the Planing Commission on April 4, 1995. The site area at that time was 11.5 acres; the difference between the site area then and now is the inclusion of the 404.63 foot protrusion westward (by 268.89 feet in width) on which the bulk of the proposed mini -warehouse facility is to sit. In the 1995 site plan, the area to the west of Lot 4, where the mini - warehouse offices is located, was included in the Shopping Center site. A revised site plan was made necessary by the change in the layout. The lots on which the Shopping Center development is to take place are Lots 1 and 2, and Lots 4 through 7 of the Otter Creek Village Commercial Subdivision, the Preliminary Plat of which is being reviewed for approval as Item 1 of the Planning Commission agenda of April 25, 1996. Access to the interior "landlocked" lot is being provided by access easements and a private street from Stagecoach Rd. to Lot 2, and is addressed in the approval of the Preliminary Plat. A companion item is Item 6 of the agenda, the Otter Creek Village Mini -warehouse PD-C project, and is the development which is to occur on Lot 3 of the subdivision, but is outside the scope of April 25, 1996 SUBDIVIS ICiN ITEM NQ, 10 , Cont.) _..,.__ FILE NO.: Z-3454 F the Site Plan Review for the Shopping Center. Access across Lot 4 to Lot 3, the location of the Mini -Warehouse facility, is addressed in the Preliminary Plat approval and in the PD-C approval. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a Shopping Center on a 8.54 acre tract. Division of the property into 6 lots in order to sell particular building sites is proposed. Lot 1 is to be the site of a grocery store and its accompanying parking. Lot 2 is to be a row of shops, with their accompanying parking. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 are reserved for future users. A public access drive is proposed off Otter Creek Parkway, and is to be a shared, or common, drive straddling the Lots 6 and 7 common property line. A service drive, in a cross --access easement, entering the site from Otter Creek Parkway, crosses Lot 7, across the rear of Lots 1 and 2, and accesses the parking lot along the south boundary of Lot 2. Three public access drives are proposed to enter the site from Stagecoach Rd. Right-of-way along Stagecoach Rd., as required by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, is to be dedicated. No variances are requested - A. PROPOSAUREQUE T: Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING QNDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. There are thick treed areas along the western edge of the site: the center portion has been partially cleared. The site is almost level, with only a 2 foot differential across the site, generally falling from a high point in the center of the tract to the northeast, southwest, and southeast. The existing zoning of Lots 1 and 2, and Lots 5 through 7 is C-2. Lot 4 is zoned C-3. Property to the west and south is zoned C-2, Across Otter Creek Parkway to the north is C-1 zoned property. Across Stagecoach Rd. to the east, the property is zoned R-2. Across Stagecoach Rd. to the southeast is a C-3 "node'. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY MME T : Public Works comments: The two northerly drives along Stagecoach Rd. must be combined into one 36 foot drive, with a continuation of this width to the west. This drive should be located between Lots 1 and 5. Access easements should be wide 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 1 n FILF, NO,.- Z- 4 4-F D. enough to include the sidewalks on each side of the entrance drives. Since the drives access multiple lots, they are to be designed as Commercial streets, with sidewalks. Since the plat area extends to the Otter Creek Rd. intersection, widening of the roadway, in line with the preliminary plans of AHTD should be provided, versus payment of an In -Lieu. Full one-half street to minor arterial standards will be required, with a sidewalk on the frontage of the property, including relocation of City -owned utilities. Plans should make provision for right -turn lanes at the entrance drives. Dedication of appropriate right-of- way will be required. An AHTD permit will be required. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. USAGE-LRD must approve the plans. The Stormwater Detention ordinance applies. Arkansas Power and Light Company noted that 15 foot ease- ments will be required along both boundary street frontages and along the lot lines between Lots 6-7 and Lot 1 and between Lots 2-5 and Lot 1 and 10 foot easements will be required along both the west and north lot lines of Lot 4. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre applies. No connections will be allowed to the 16" main which is on the west side of Stagecoach Rd. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The Fire Department notes that a "No Parking,• Towaway" zone be shown in fire lane areas close to the buildings. I S SUES / LEGAL / TECHNI CAL / DES I,_ CAN : Sec. 36--12+6 through 35-127 (the Zoning Regulations) require review by the Planning Commission of proposed site plans for developments within C-2 zoning districts. (Also included in this Site plan Review requirement are developments in R-f, R-7, 0-2, 1--1, and R-7A zoned, areas.) Because the Shopping Center is to be on land which is zoned C-2, the "Zoning" Site Plan Review is requested. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM No. 1Q_ (CQnt.) FIFE N4. -3454 F The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that: No cover letter making a formal application has been furnished. No "Information Sheet" has been furnished. Sec. 31-13(I) requires that the pedestrian circulation system (i.e., walkways) be shown. Both internal and boundary walks need to be shown on the Site Plan. Sec. 31-13(1) requires that the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening materials to be used (fencing, walls, plat materials, etc.) are to be shown. This has not been presented. Sec. 31-13(1) requires that all easements be shown. These are indicated on the preliminary plat (although modifications need to be made), but also need to be on the Site Plan. Sec. 31-13(2) requires the submission of quantitative date, including building coverage of buildings, floor areas of buildings, and number of parking spaces. A parking analysis is to be provided. Sec. 36-502 requires a minimum of 1 parking space for each 225 square feet of gross floor area for Shopping Centers. The grocery store is to be 27,750 square feet in area; the "Shops" are another 10,800 square feet. The total building area proposed in the initial phase of development is 38,550 square feet. This will require 171 parking spaces. Parking spaces for 190 vehicles is shown in the public parking areas, plus employee parking at the rear of the "Shops". This means that there is excess parking at this time, but also that only another 4,200 square feet of building area can be added to the site without adding parking. As other development on the "Reserved" lots is planned, and as the Planning Commission reviews these building site plans, this requirement for additional parking needs to be kept in mind. Public utilities and on -site fire hydrants must be shown. The Plans Review Specialist comments: The plan provides for the land use and street buffers which are required by the ordinances. 4 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) ,., k'ILE NO.; Z-3454-F The Landscape Ordinance requires a 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the buildings and the public parking areas. (Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed.) The Landscape Ordinance requires a 6 foot wide (4 foot minimum, with transfer) landscape strip between separate lots or lot lease lines. (Allowance is made for ingress and egress points.) Lot 2 does not provide for this requirement where it abuts Lots 1, 3, and 4. The plan submitted does not provide for dumpsters. Dumpster locations must be shown and screened on three sides with an 8 foot high wall or wood fence, and must be oriented away form the street. Provision must be made for all dumpsters which will be required (e.g., dumpsters for recyclables generated by fast-food restaurants and grocery stores, etc.) E. ANALYSIS• The overall "scheme" of the development is shown, although all the required "i"s" have not been dotted nor the "T's" crossed with respect to the information required to be submitted or shown on the site plan. These can, admittedly, be dealt with when a building permit is requested, and are not essential for the Planning Commission to be able to approval the overall development plan. In effect, though, staff has had to do the parking analysis (which the applicant is supposed to do and furnish with the application) in order for the staff and Planing Commission to review the adequacy of the provided parking. Staff has had to calculate building square footages and count, parking spaces, in lieu of the applicant providing this information with the application. It is presumed that the applicant is not requesting any variances: no cover letter or information sheet were provided, however, and it is in these documents where such requests are made. The primary issue to be resolved, as far as the site plan is concerned, is the Public Works issue regarding access points and access drives. A re -design to include an elimination of one of the two northernmost drives off Stagecoach Rd., and a relocation of the drive is mandated by Public Works. widening the access drives to commercial street standards, with sidewalks, is required. widening of Stagecoach Rd. and provision for a deceleration lane is required.. These issues must be addressed by the applicant, or variances/waivers must be requested and approved, The Planning Commission. 5 April 25, -996 SUBDIVISIQ ITEM NO. �10 (CQnt . ) FILE N4. _Z 3454-F needs this information presented by the applicant at the Commission meeting, F . STAFF RECQMME,._ DAT ATI . NS Staff approval of the revised site plan, subject to the applicant complying with the Public works and landscaping requirements, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request to the Subdivision Committee members, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the proposed site plan, and discussed the issues with Mr, McGetrick. Mr. McGetrick reported that he would discuss the Public Works requirements with his client and meet with Public works in the week which followed. He reported that he would supply staff with revised drawings and information, as required. The Committee forwarded the application to the full.. Commission for the public hearing. PLAN XING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that all Public Works issues had been resolved with the approval of the Preliminary Plat. Staff reported that the Neighborhoods and Planning issues had been resolved, with a revised site plan having been submitted which meets the Ordinance requirements concerning the boundary street and sidewalk requirements being shown and the Landscaping and Buffer requirements being shown; and, the dumpster locations having been shown. Staff recommended approval of the Site Plan, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, The site plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. Cl April 25, 1996 ITEM O.• 11 FILE N Z-4069-A NAME: LOCATION• O ERIAPPLICANT• PROPOSAL ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location; Alltel - Conditional Use. Permit 1515 Market Street Thomas L. and Luella Allen/ Alltel by Carrick D. znabnett A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall, monopole cellular telecommunications tower on this C-4 zoned property. Associated with the tower is an unmanned 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building. This site is located on the east side of Market Street, between Arcade Drive and Merrill Drive. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed site is a 27 foot by 44 foot lease area within the parking lot of the 1515 Market St. commercial building. The site is surrounded entirely by commercial uses and zoning. There is a large auto dealership to the east and a large retail center to the west of this site with various ether commercial and office uses in the general area. This proposal should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The site upon which the lease area will be located currently has a total of 45 parking spaces. The proposed construction will eliminate seven spaces, leaving a total. of 38 parking spaces. The existing building on this site is 6,400 square feet total, and contains 6 businesses, requiring 21 parking spaces. Eliminating the seven parking spaces, with this proposed construction, will have no effect on the required parking for the overall site. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 11 (Cont.) FILE NO: Z-4009-A 4. Screening and Buffers: No issues 5. City Engineer Comments: No Public Works issues 6. ULility Commentg: No utility comments received. 7. ,Staff AnAlysis: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 75 foot tall monopole communications tower and a 12' X 28' equipment building on a 27' X 40' lease area located at 1515 Market Street, which is zoned C-4. The proposed site is located in an area which contains an abundance of mixed commercial and office uses. The site is adjacent to and west of a large auto dealership. The proposed use should have no adverse impact on the surrounding properties. B. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Carrick Inabnett was present, representing the application. He gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion regarding the co -location of facilities and the other towers in this general area. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, explained that the parking spaces eliminated with this project would have no effect on the required number of parking for the overall site. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ. ; 11 (Cont.) FTLE NO.... Z 40fl9 A PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval, of the conditional use permit. 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM 12 FILE NO.: Z-578 -A LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Southwest Christian Academy - Conditional Use Permit 11301 Geyer Springs Road James R. Stewart A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the phased construction of a 10,500 square foot classroom building, a 22 foot by 135 foot classroom addition to the existing school building, and a 20 foot by 40 foot storage building on this R-=2 zoned, 3.5 acre existing school site. The school site is located on the east side of Geyer Springs Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Mabelvale cut-off. 2. Compatibility with Neiahborhgod: This property is located in a rural area comprised mainly of large tracts of vacant, heavily wooded Land. The Charity Community Church is located immediately north of this existing school site. There are no other uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposed expansion will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Perking: The proposed expansion will bring the school's enrollment to 444 students. Based on the number of students, classrooms and employees, the applicant needs to provide 70 parking spaces to meet minimum ordinance requirements. The existing school site has 34 on -site parking spaces. The applicant also has a current written agreement with Charity Community church, which allows the school to use the church's parking lot, immediately north of the school property. This parking lot contains 50+ parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant's parking arrangement exceeds the minimum ordinance requirements. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 12 C nt. FILE NO.: Z-578 -A 4. Screening and Buffers: The site must comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances. The proposed expanded vehicular use area must meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements. These requirements include, plantings within the interior of the vehicular use area and between public parking areas and the proposed and existing buildings. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Enctineer CQmments: Per building permit 94-087 and excavation permit NRT #94-003 this property is not in floodplain. A revised grading plan is required and modifications to the stormwater detention plan may be required. The Academy was given a five year deferral of street widening by the Board of Directors with Ordinance 16,702, granted on July 5, 1994. The Academy dedicated the Master Street Plan right-of-way for the 210 foot frontage. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analygig: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the phased construction of a 10.500 square foot classroom building, a 22 foot by 135 foot classroom addition to the existing school building and a 20 foot by 40 foot storage building on this R-2 zoned, 3.5 acre existing private school/daycare site at 11301 Geyer Springs Rd. The applicant received a conditional use permit on February 8, 1994 which allowed the construction of the 15,000 square foot school building, parking areas and placement of three portable classrooms on this site. The portable classrooms were approved for a period not to exceed three years, but were never placed on the site. The applicant also received a three year deferral of the paving of the rear parking area. with the proposed expansion, the school's maximum enrollment will be 444 students. The applicant has a current written agreement with Charity Community Church, which allows the school to use the churches parking lot, immediately north of the school site. This shared parking arrangement with the church allows 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIO ITEM NO.. 12 Cont FILE NO.. Z-5786-A the applicant to meet and exceed the minimum ordinance requirements for parking for the school site. The applicant is proposing to complete this project in phases. Phase I will include construction of the 22 foot by 135 foot classroom addition to the existing school building, construction of the 20 foot by 40 foot storage building, and paving of the rear parking area (for which a 3-year paving deferral was granted on February 8, 1994). The 10,500 square foot classroom building will be constructed as a future phase. other than the church, there are no other uses in the immediate vicinity. This property is located in an area comprised mainly of large tracts of vacant, heavily wooded land. Therefore, the proposed school expansion will be compatible with the neighborhood. 8. Staff Regommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the following conditions; 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Huffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. The rear parking area (for which a three year paving deferral was granted on February 8, 1994) must be paved with Phase I construction. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE gdi!MENT. (APRIL 4, 1996) James Stewart was present, representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the Committee. Monte Moore explained that the proposed classroom building and storage building would need to be rearranged slightly to meet required setbacks. Mr. Stewart stated that he would eliminate the one-way drive from his proposal. The. Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO., 12 (Cont.) FILE NO Z- 'l5 86-A PLANNING COMMI SIM ACTIQNN: (APRIL 25■ 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 4 April 25, 1996 ITEM 13 FILE NO. • Z--61 3 NAME• LpCATIDN- WNERIAPPLICANT: ORDINANCE DESIGN TANDARDS: 1. Site Location; Payne Chapel - Conditional Use Permit 1710 Rack ,Street Payne Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church by Emma L. Barnes A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 34 foot by 50 foot fellowship hall addition to the existing church building at 1710 Rock Street, zoned R-4. The site is located at the southwest corner of East 17th and Rock Streets. 2. Comaatibility with Neighborhood: This existing church site is surrounded primarily by single-family residences with a scattering of vacant lots. There are several commercial uses further west of this site along Scott and Main Streets in the Capitol Zoning District. The proposed expansion to the church should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 3. [On -Site Drives and Parking: The church is nonconforming in its relationship to parking, given the fact that the church was built over 25 years ago and has no off-street paved parking. The Fellowship Hall addition to the church will not require any additional parking spaces, as the parking requirement for the church is based on the sanctuary seating capacity which will not change. 4. Scrgening and Buffers: The site must comply with the Cityts Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO—: 13 _ (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z--6103 wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen this site from adjacent residential properties to the south and west. 5. City Engineer Comments Sidewalks with handicap ramps are required on both streets. Stormwater detention required. 5. 2tility comments: Little Rock Wastewater Utility -- Sewer main located on property. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility prior to construction. 7, Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 30 foot by 50 foot Fellowship Hall addition to the existing church building at 1710 Rock Street, which is zoned R-4. The applicant proposes to construct the 30 foot by 50 foot addition on the west end of the existing church building. There is an existing one-story frame structure on the south side of the church building. The applicant proposes to remove this structure from the site, as it has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer usable. As noted earlier in paragraph 3., the church is nonconforming in its relationship to parking and the proposed Fellowship Hall addition will not require any additional paved parking spaces. The proposed building expansion should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding residential properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the following conditions:. 1. Compliance with Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with Utility Comments 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: _Z-6103 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Emma Barnes and Rev. Brooks were present, representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal and the general location. He stated that the building addition would require no additional parking spaces. David Scherer, of Public Works, addressed the requirement for sidewalks along Rock Street. Mrs. Barnes stated that she was not aware that the addition would not require additional parking. She stated the parking area would be eliminated because of finances. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays. and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM O.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-6111 DAME LOCATIUN• -OWt±iE_R IAP PL I CANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Brown - Conditional Use Permit 423 N. Van Buren Street Martha L. Brown A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the conversion, of a single family residence into a duplex at 423 N. Van Buren Street, zoned R-3. The site is located at the southeast corner of Van Buren Street and Lee Avenue. 2. CgMatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located in a predominately single family residential neighborhood. The properties north of this site are zoned R-2 and contain single family structures. The properties east and west of this site are zoned R-3 and also contain single family structures. The property south of this site, at the northeast corner of Van Buren Street and "C" Street, is zoned R-4 and contains a triplex. The two properties further south, across "C" Street are also zoned R-4. This site contains a two --story single family dwelling. The proposal to convert this existing dwelling into a duplex will not involve any expansion of the structure and should not be a noticeable change in the property. The proposed duplex should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and_F4rking: The proposed use requires three on -site parking spaces, as per the two-family dwelling standard. There is currently on -site space available to meet this requirement. 4. Scregning and Bgffers: No Comments April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM O.: 14(ContFILE NO.: Z-6111 5. City Engineer Comments: Repair of any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk is the responsibility of the property owner according to City ordinance. 6. utility Comments: Little Rock Wastewater Utility -- Location of sewer service unknown. Contact Little Rock wastewater Utility for details. 7. Staff Analysis: This issue is before the Little Rock Planning Commission as result of a recent Zoning Enforcement Action taken on the property at 423 N. Van Buren Street. An inspection of the property by the Zoning Enforcement Staff revealed three separate dwelling units and possible construction of a fourth dwelling unit within the existing single family residential structure. Each of the three dwelling units contained separate bedroom■ kitchen and bathroom facilities. The applicant proposes to reduce the number of dwelling units within this structure to two. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a duplex on this property at 423 N. Van Buren Street, which is zoned R-3. The applicant, Martha Brown, proposes to live in one of the dwelling units along with her elderly mother. The second dwelling unit will be a small loft apartment. Mrs. Brown is employed in Hot Springs and works several nights each weep. She is proposing the second dwelling unit so her mother will not be alone in the house at night, and the extra income generated by the second dwelling is needed to help care for her mother. Staff feels that the proposal is reasonable and should have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. 8, Staff Recommendgtion• Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 2. Compliance with utility Comments 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont ) FILE NO.; Z-6111 allBDIVISIQN CQMMITTEE CpMMENT; (APRIL 4, 1996) Martha Brown was present, representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of this proposal and explained the current enforcement action. Mrs. Brown stated that there are presently only two dwelling units with the structure. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMUSIGN ACTIC7N; (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in: the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM O.: 1 FILE NO.: Z- 11 -A 4 '■t�-� LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:. Site Location: Marriott - Conditional Use Permit 1401 S. Shackleford Clifton B. Peck III and Beverly Joyce Peck/Impac Hotel Group, Inc. by Monty Teverbaugh A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 96-unit extended stay hotel on this 3.2 acre site which is currently zoned 0-3. (An 0-2 reclassification has been filed for the property; Z-6113.) The applicant is requesting a deferral of the required 1/2 street improvements to Kaufman Road. The applicant is also requesting the following variances: 1.A variance from the Minimum Ordinance Parking Requirements. 2. A variance to allow a ground --mounted sign taller that the maximum height allowed by ordinance. The proposed site is located on the Shackleford Road, approximately 900 Road. The site is currently vacant 2. Compatibility with Ngiahborhood: east side of feet south of Kanis and wooded. The proposed site is located along the east side of Shackleford Road immediately north of the Arkansas Heart Hospital site (Shackleford Road and I-430) which is currently under construction. The tract of land immediately north of this site is zoned 0-2 and is April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 1(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-6113-A currently vacant. The properties further north are zoned 0-3 and contain primarily single family residences. The property east of this site, across the Kaufman Road right-of-way, is zoned 0-3 and currently contains an old cemetery. The property across Shackleford Road to the west is zoned C-2 and 0-3 and contains an office development on the 0-3 property and vacant land on the C-2 property. This proposed Hotel {development should not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties. 3. gn mite Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 36 foot wide driveway off of Shackleford Road. The proposed 96 room Hotel will require 106 on -site paved parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 102 on -site paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers: The site must comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements when averaged out but drop below the full requirement of 30 feet along Shackleford Road and 20 feet along Kaufman Road and the minimum requirements of 20 feet and 13 feet respectively. Areas set aside for interior, perimeter and building landscaping meet and exceed Landscape ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border are required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Engineer Comments: A grading ,permit with ADPC&E permit is required prior to construction. Stormwater Detention. Ordinance. applies. Drive shall be 25 feet from property line to edge of drive and be 36 feet in width. Sidewalks shall have CLR standard ramps installed. Dedicate right-of- way to 45 feet from centerline. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way for Kaufman Road and complete 1/2 street improvements for Kaufman Road. 2 April. 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.. Z--6113-A 6. Utility andFire Department gomm n Little Rock Water Works -- A pro rats front footage charge of $5/front foot on Shackleford Road and an acreage charge of $150/acres apply in addition to normal connection charges. Fire. Department -- Must place "tow away zone" signs in fire lanes. Show fire hydrant location and fire department connections. Little Rock Wastewater Utility -- Sewer main extension required with easements. Capacity fee will be charged. AP&L -- A 15 foot utility easement is requested around the entire perimeter of the site.. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 96-unit extended stay hotel on this 3.2 acre site at 1401 S. Shackleford Road, which is currently zoned 0-3 (the applicant has applied for re -zoning to 0-2, Z-6113). This site is located on the east side of Shackleford Road., immediately north of the Arkansas Heart Hospital site (Shackleford Road and I-430) which is currently under construction. The applicant proposes to construct two 3-story, 48- unit hotel buildings and a one-story common "Gatehou.se°' building on this site. The development will also include paved parking areas and drives, a swimming pool area and a tennis court area. Based on the surrounding zoning and uses, this proposal should not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. A portion of the street side buffer along Shackleford Road drops below the minimum 20 feet as required by ordinance, but exceeds the full requirement of 30 feet when averaged. A portion of the street side buffer along Kaufman Road also drops below the minimum 13 feet required by ordinance, but meets the minimum requirement of 13 feet when averaged. In no case should the street Bide buffer along Shackleford Road or Kaufman Road drop below 6 feet. There are two variance requests and a deferral request associated with this application. The proposed 96 unit hotel requires 106 on -site paved parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 102 on -site paved parking 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIQIr1 ITEM NO.: 15 Cont. FILE No.: Z-6113-A spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum ordinance parking requirements, as there is a deficiency of 4 required parking spaces. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the ordinance requirements for signage. A ground --mounted sign, 8 feet 2 inches in height and 43 square feet in area, is proposed. This exceeds the maximum height (6 feet) allowed by ordinance for a ground -mounted sign in office zoning. However, the sign will be 21 square feet below the maximum (64 square feet) allowed by ordinance for a ground -mounted sign in office zoning. In addition, the applicant is requesting a deferral for the completion of half street improvements for Kaufman Road. The deferral is requested for a period of five (5) years or until the abutting section of Kaufman Road extending to Kanis Road is constructed, or is needed for access to abutting property. The deferral would be compatible with the deferral which was granted for the Arkansas Heart Hospital site (immediately south of this site), ordinance No. 17,000 granted on November 7, 1995. 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 utility and Fire Department Comments 4. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to reduce the number of on -site paved parking spaces from the required 106 spaces to a total of 102 spaces. 5. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to construct a ground -mounted sign with a height of 8 foot 2 inches in office zoning. 6. Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral of half street improvements to Kaufman Road for a period of five (5) years or until the abutting section of Kaufman Road is constructed, or is needed for access to abutting property. 7. The site must be rezoned to 110--2 . 4 April 25, 1996 SUEDIVISIO ITEM 15 Wont,_ FILE Z- 11 -A EDIVISION C(QMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Monty Teverbaugh was present, representing the application. The location and a brief description of the proposal was given to the Committee. David Scherer, of Public works, discussed his comments with the Committee, primarily the right-of-way dedication and 1/2 street improvements for Kaufman Road. There was a brief discussion regarding the buffer along Kaufman Road, the parking and driveway arrangements and what variances would be applied for. Mr. Teverbaugh stated that a revised plan would be completed and forwarded to the Planning Staff along with a letter requesting any additional variances by April 12, 1996. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLAMING COM1MiI5SION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 5 April 25, 1996 ITEM NQ. 1f, _ _FILE NO.: Z-5114 LOCATION: OWNER/A'PPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DE I N T DARD : 1. Site Location: Bethel Primitive Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit 10912 Chicot Road Bethel Primitive Baptist Church by Charles Holladay and Connie Watson A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and parking lot on this existing 4 acre church site, which is zoned R-2. The applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in the paving requirements for the driveway and parking lot. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) year deferral in the completion of half principal arterial street improvements to Chicot. Road. The existing church site is located on the west side of Chicot Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Mabelvale Cut-off. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located in an area primarily zoned R-2 and comprised mainly of single family residential uses. The properties to the north and west of this site contain single family residences with one commercial building immediately north on Depriest Road. Chicot Elementary School is located immediately south of this site. There is some vacant land east of this site (across Chicot Road), with single family residences further east. The proposed expansion of the church building should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Driv n Parking: The church is nonconforming in its relationship to parking, given the fact that the church was built over April 25, 1996 SUEDIV281_dN ITEM 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 25 years ago and has no off-street paved parking spaces. There is a small gravel parking lot on the south side of the church building. The proposed increase in the church's seating capacity from 90 to 160 will require 18 new paved parking spaces. There is ample space within the proposed new parking area to satisfy this requirement. The applicant is requesting a 24--month deferral in paving the parking lot and the driveway. There is a single access point from Chicot Road. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border are required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic and gravel. Screening of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north and west is required. This screening may be in the form of a six foot high opaque wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Placement of the screening may need adjustment in order to not obstruct the floodwa.y. This site must comply with minimum Landscape Ordinance requirements. 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide contour information. Provide base flood information. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plan. A development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to any construction. Contact ADPC&E and the USAGE-LRD prior to start of work. A portion of this property lies in the regulatory floodway. Hold application until information furnished as requested. Stormwater Detention ordinance will apply. Chicot (toad is a Principal Arterial, dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct half of the 5 lane pavement with sidewalk including relocation of City owned utilities. Paved drives are required by ordinance. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Fire Department: Driveway must support weight of fire apparatus. Proper fire hydrant spacing is required. 2 April 25, 1996 SUDDIVISIQN ITEM U_Q.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and parking lot on this existing 4 acre church site at 10912 Chicot Road, which is zoned R-2. The applicant is also requesting a 24-month deferral in the paving requirements for the driveway and parking lot. The site currently contains a small church building with a seating capacity of approximately ninety (90) people. The church has existed on this site for over twenty-five years. The church building sits approximately 500 feet back from Chicot Road and has a small gravel parking lot on its south side. There is also a small out -building on the site which serves the church as a kitchen and for social events. when construction is complete, this out -building will be torn down and removed. The applicant proposes to construct a new 38 foot by 74 foot church sanctuary, with a seating capacity of one hundred and sixty (160). The new sanctuary will be built on the east side of, and attached to, the existing building. The existing building will become the kitchen and dining area for the new church building. The proposed increase in the church's seating capacity (from 90 to 160) will require 18 new paved parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a new parking lot on the north side of the new sanctuary. The new parking lot will accommodate approximately 32 vehicles. The existing gravel parking lot on the south side of the building will accommodate approximately 14 vehicles. The applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in paving the new parking lot and the driveway from Chicot Road. As noted in paragraph 5., at least a portion of this property lies in the regulatory floodway. The applicant must furnish information regarding the location of the floodway on this property. This could have a major effect on the design of this site plan. This issue must be resolved prior to Planning Commission approval. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) year deferral in completion of half principal arterial street improvements to Chicot Road. Public Works Staff has indicated that they can support this deferral request. The applicant has also agreed to dedicate the 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIQN ITEM .• 16 JQontJFILE NO.: Z- 114 appropriate right-of-way (55 feet from centerline) for Chicot Road. Based on the zoning in this general area and the surrounding uses, the proposed expansion of the existing church facilities should not have an adverse effect on the 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 Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comments 4. Staff recommends approval of the 24-month deferral of paving requirements for the new parking lot and driveway. 5. Staff recommends approval of the five (5) year deferral for half street improvements to Chicot Road. SUBDIVIEIM COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Connie Watson was present, representing the application. A brief description of the proposal and the general location was given to the Committee. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the Committee, primarily the fact that part of this property lies in the regulatory floodway and information on this must be obtained by the applicant before approval can be given. He stated that the applicant needed to obtain a survey of the property which shows the location of the floodway. He also noted the requirement to dedicate right -of --way (55 feet form centerline of Chicot Road) and to construct half street improvements to Chicot Road. Mrs. Watson stated that she would obtain a survey of the property (showing the floodway) as soon as possible and revise the site plan accordingly. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 4 April 25, 1996 Su_BDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 nt. FILE NO.: Z- 114 PLANNING „COMMISSION ACTION; (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the June 6, 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 June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 10 ayes, Q nays, and 1 absent. 5 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.; 17 FILE NO,: Z-6116 DAME: AT&T - Conditional Use Permit L€7CATIOIQ 7626 Cantrell Road OWrERR/APPLICANT: Jack Burchfield/AT&T Wireless Services by Hunter Stuart PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 110 foot tall, monopole cellular telecommunications tower on this C-3 zoned property. Associated with the tower is an unmanned 12 foot by 20 foot equipment building. The applicant is also requesting height and setback variances for the tower and equipment building.. ORDINANCE DESIGN ...aTANDARDS : 1. Site Location: The site is located at the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and "T" Street. 2. Compatibility with NgighborhQgd: The proposed tower site is in an area of mixed zoning and uses located along the north side of Cantrell Road. The properties fronting Cantrell Road, to the south and west of this site, are primarily zoned C-3 and contain a variety of commercial uses. The properties to the north of this site are zoned R-2 and contain single family residences. The property immediately east of this site is zoned R-5 and contains multifamily residences with single family residences further east. The proposed 110 foot tower should not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, in as much as it is a replacement for the current tower. 3 on -Oita Drives and Parking: Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 20 foot access easement off of "T" Street. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM HQ,; 17 , (.Cont,) ) _ FILE NO.: Z--5116 will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. .City Engineer Comments: Grading permit required. 6. Utility Commentg: No Comments 7, Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 110 foot tall, monopole tower on this C-3 zoned site located at 7626 Cantrell Road. Associated with the tower is an unmanned 12 foot by 20 foot equipment building. The proposed tower and equipment building will be located along the north property line of this site, adjacent to single family residential property. the site currently contains a 110 foot tall antenna structure with guy wires and a 15 foot by 45 foot metal storage building in this same general area. The 110 foot tall antenna and the metal storage building will be removed as part of this proposal. The applicant is also requesting height and setback variances for the tower and equipment building. A maximum height of 110 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. A 10 foot setback is proposed, for the equipment building, along the north property lane. This encroaches into the minimum 25 foot rear yard setback as required by ordinance. The existing metal storage building (which will be removed) has an existing 8 foot setback along this north (rear) property line. The proposed equipment building, which will be less than half the size of the existing storage building, will maintain a two foot greater setback. The north side of the equipment building will have no window or door openings. The base of the tower will be screened by a 6 foot wood opaque fence.. Based on the fact that this existing site contains a 110 foot antenna structure with guy wires and a 15 foot by 45 foot metal storage building (both of which will be removed), the proposed new monopole tower and 12 foot by 20 foot equipment building should prove to be 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 17 n FILE NO.: Z-6116 an improvement to the site and should have no adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. 8. Staff Rerammendation: Staff recommends approval of the application and of the requested height and setback variances subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comments. HDIVI I MMITTEE MME T : (APRIL 4, 1996) Hunter Stuart was present, representing the application. He gave a brief description of the proposal. He described the monopole size and equipment building. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, discussed the variances requested. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to full Commission for final action. PLANNING CQMMISSION,ACTION: tAPRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM 18 FILE NO.: Z 11.7 1 AME LOCATIt]N OWNER/APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: 1. Site Location: Sprint Spectrum (I-30 Site) - Conditional Use Permit 011OVIilivVeM Jones Harley-Davidson Company/ Sprint Spectrum by Drew Basham A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 110 foot tali, monopole cellular telecommunications tower on this C-3 zoned property. Associated with the tower are two small equipment cabinets. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the tower. The proposed site is located on the north side of I-30 just east of Mabelvale Pike. The site is behind the Jones Harley-Davidson facility at 10201 I-30. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed tower site is in an area of mixed zoning and uses located along the north side of Interstate 30. The properties fronting I-30, to the south and east of this site, are zoned C-4 and R-2 and contain a variety of commercial uses. The property across Mabelvale Pike to the north and west, is zoned R-2 and contains the Arkansas Highway Department facilities. The proposed 110 foot tower should not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. 3. Driv nd P rkin Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a driveway off of Mabelvale Pike. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 1 Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- 117 4. 9greening and Buffgrs: No Comments 5. City Encineer Comments: A grading permit is required. 6. Utility Comments: AP&L -- A 15 foot easement is required if an 8KV primary circuit is needed. (A 25 foot easement for 30 circuit). 7. taff_Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 110 foot tall, monopole tower on this C-3 zoned site located at 10201 I-30. Associated with the tower are two small equipment cabinets (approximately 6.331W. X 5.251H. X 3.331D.). The proposed tower will be located along the north side of Interstate 30, behind the Jones Harley-Davidson facility at 10201 Interstate 30. The site is surrounded (on all sides) by commercial and office uses. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the tower. A maximum height of 110 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance for a steel or other metal ground -mounted tower. Based on the location of this site (along 1-30) and the commercial and office uses in this general area, the proposed 110 foot tall tower should not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. S. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application and of the requested height variance subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 2. Compliance with the Utility Comments 2 April .25, 1996 SUBDIVIa.,Ip i ITEM NO.: 1(Cont.)FILE Z-6117 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE QQMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant, Drew Basham, was present. He gave a brief description of this proposal and the general location. He discussed the monopole size and the size of the equipment cabinets. Mr. Basham stated that this tower would have no effect on any of the Arkansas Highway Department communications. There was a brief discussion regarding the easement as requested by AP&L. There were no other comments offered on this issue. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, U nays, and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM No. 19 FILE No Z-6118 RA _ME LOCAT ICON +OWNER/APPLICANT• PR,QPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN ,STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Sprint Spectrum Reservoir site) Use Permit (Jackson - Conditional 8401 Cantrell Road City of Little Rock/Sprint Spectrum by Drew Basham A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole cellular telecommunications tower on this R-2 zoned property. Associated with the tower are two small equipment cabinets. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the tower. The proposed site is located within the Little Rock Municipal Water Works' (Jackson Reservoir) site on Cantrell Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of Reservoir Road. 2. Compatibility with _ iahborhood: The proposed tower site is located inside the fenced Little Rock Municipal Water 'Works Reservoir site at 8401 Cantrell Road. The tower will be located on the south side of the lake in a large wooded area which is adjacent to and north of Reservoir Park. The proposed 100 foot tall tower site is surrounded by tall, mature trees and should have no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. 3. On -Site. Drives and -Parkin : Access to this site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot driveway off of an existing asphalt drive within the park property. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; 19(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-611 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Commenta: A grading permit is required. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole tower on this R-2 zoned site located at 8401 Cantrell Road. Associated with the tower are two small equipment cabinets (approximately 6.331W. X 5.251H. X 3.33-D.). The proposed tower will be located within the Little Rock Municipal Water Works Jackson Reservoir site on Cantrell Road. The tower site will be located on the south side of the lake, adjacent to Reservoir Park■ in an area which is heavily wooded.. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the tower. A height of 100 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance for a steel or other metal ground - mounted tower. Given the fact that the land surrounding this proposed site (in all directions) is heavily wooded and should block views of the monopole from surrounding properties, the proposed 100 foot tall tower should not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application and of the requested height variance subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comments. SUBDIVISION,CQMMITTEE CQMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Drew Basham was present, representing the application. He. gave a brief description of the proposal. 2 April 25, 1995 SUHDIVISIO ITEM NO.• 1 (Cont.) FILE N Z- 118 After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to full commission for final action. PLAMING QOMMISSION ACTION; (APRIL 25■ 1995) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, a nays, and 1 absent. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM N 20 FILE NO.: Z-611 NAME: LOCATION: OWNERIAPPLICANT PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location. Smith - Conditional Use Permit 7718 Henderson Road Ronald Stephen Smith A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the temporary placement of a 12 foot by 60 foot (1985 model) mobile home on this R-2 zoned site, to serve as an accessory dwelling. A variance is requested to allow an accessory dwelling greater than 700 square feet in area. The proposed accessory dwelling is 720 square feet in area. Also, a variance is requested to leave the transport elements on the mobile home. The site is located on the west side of Henderson Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Raines Road. The site is approximately 3 miles outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. 2. Compatibility with Neighbgrhood: The property is located in a rural area, approximately 3 miles west of the city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning jurisdiction. The area is comprised primarily of single family homes on large lots. There are several other manufactured homes in the vicinity. The proposed accessory dwelling will sit approximately 200 feet from Henderson Road and should have no impact on adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The principal dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling require one on -site parking space each. The site contains an existing gravel driveway which has two April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 2 (Cont.) FILE O.: Z- 119 access points onto Henderson Road. There is ample space to satisfy this parking requirement. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Commentg: Applicant must contact Pulaski County Planning at 340- 8260, Betty Smith or Tony Vestal for approval since this is outside the municipal limits and beyond the limits of flood study. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to place a 12 foot by 60 foot, 1985 model, single wide manufactured home on this 5 acre, R-2 zoned site, to serve as an accessory dwelling. The applicant is proposing placement of this home on a temporary basis only, as a residence for his father-in-law who is 90 years old, in poor health and needful of care and supervision. The site, which contains a single family residential structure near the southeast corner, has two existing mobile home spaces along the north property line, on which two mobile homes were located prior to 1988. This area has a separate well, well house and its own septic tank system. The proposed accessory dwelling will be located approximately 200+ feet from Henderson Road and 20 feet from the side (north) property line. The applicant, Stephen Smith, is proposing only temporary placement of this mobile home accessory dwelling for as bang as his father-in-law is capable of living there. When the time comes that Mr. Smith's father-in-law no longer needs the accessory dwelling, it will be removed from the site. The applicant is requesting two variances with this application. The first variance is to allow an accessory dwelling greater than the 700 square foot maximum floor area allowed by ordinance. The proposed accessory dwelling is 720 square feet in area. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the minimum siting standards for mobile homes. He is requesting to leave the transport elements on the home, since it will be on the site only temporarily. The 2 April �95, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 2(Cont,)_FILE NO.: Z-611 applicant proposes to screen the tongue portion of the mobile home by planting evergreen shrubs around it. Staff feels that this proposal is reasonable and should have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. 8. Staff Reg,9mmgadation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1.) The Conditional Use Permit being limited to five (5) years. If necessary, the applicant can request a review for a time extension by the Planning Commission at the end of five (5) years. 2.) Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3.) Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as established by Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, Section 36-262(d)(2): a.) A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b.) Removal of all transport elements (see below) c.) Permanent foundation d.) Exterior wail finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood. e.) Underpinning with permanent materials f.) Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures g.) Off-street parking per single family dwelling standards Staff recommends approval of the variance request from minimum siting standard "b.) removal of all transport elements." The mobile home's tongue portion will be screened by evergreen shrubs. 4.) Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow an accessory dwelling greater than the 700 square foot maximum floor area as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The accessory dwelling will be 720 square feet in area total. 3 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NU_._: 2.0 4Cont J FILE NO.: Z-6119 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal.. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the applicant complying with the conditions noted in the `Staff Recommendation". 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 on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 4 April 25, 1996 ITEM 21 Z-6102 owner: Paul H. Power Estate Applicant: Deborah Millsap, The Golden Angels Club Location: 2616 S. commerce Street Request: Rezone from R-3 to 0-1 Purpose: Convert existing structure into facility housing an establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization. Size: .12 acres Existing Use: Vacant, residential structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AID ZONING North - Single Family residence; zoned R-3 South - Single Family residence; zoned R-3 East - Boarded Single Family structure and single Family residence; zoned R-3 West - Boarded Single Family structure and Duplex;. zoned R-3 PUBLIC WORK$ COMMENTS Public works questions where any required on -site parking is located. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. Currently, there are several nonresidential uses in the area as well as three institutional uses. The existing single family has experienced some demolition without replacement. Due to the existing conditions, staff believes it is appropriate to allow some nonresidential in the area.. A mixed use classification for the area north of 27th Street is proposed to encourage residential in the area while allowing some nonresidential development. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 Z-51(Cont.)_. STAFF'" ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone -this .12 acre lot from "R-3" Single Family to 110-1" Quiet Office. The property consists of a typical residential lot containing a small, frame residential structure. Once rezoned, the structure will be utilized by an organization known as "The Golden Angels Club". The 0-•1 district allows for the establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic office which is defined as "the offices and activities sponsored or operated by organizations established for religious or philanthropic purposes." The Golden Angels Club is a not for profit organization with the goal of stimulating the physical, mental and spiritual growth of young people. The organization is currently operating out of the Ginger Bread Day Care Center located at 91.0 West Dixon Road in Sweet Rome. The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses. The three blocks located north of 27th Street, south of Roosevelt Road, east of Cumberland and west of I-30 currently contain three churches and several C-3 and C-4 zoned properties. There is very little viable single family in these blocks. Several of the existing single family structures are vacant and hoarded up. There are, however a few occupied single family residences. Staff believes it is appropriate to amend the Land Use Plan for this area north of 27th Street to mixed use. The mixed use designation will encourage residential use as well as allow limited nonresidential. The requested 0-1 classification would be appropriate under the mixed use designation. STAFF REQQMMENDATIQN Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-1 rezoning and of an amendment to the Central City District Land Use Plan to redesignate the area north of 27th Street as mixed use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1995) The applicant, Deborah Millsap, was present. There were no objectors present. staff presented the item and recommended approval of the requested 0-1 zoning and of an amendment to the Central City District Land Use Plan. 2 April &5, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 21 Z- 1(Cont.) Commissioner Hawn voiced concerns about having the rezoning request and Land Use Plan Amendment on the same agenda. He stated that he would prefer to have the Land Use Plan Amendment go through the process and then deal with the rezoning. Jim Dawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated that he didn't disagree with Commissioner Hawn's proposal but that such a change in procedure would require a policy directive from the Hoard of Directors. He stated that the procedure described by Commissioner Hawn had been used when dealing with difficult rezoning requests. Commissioner Hawn asked if the neighborhood had been made aware of the proposed Land Use Plan change. Mr. Lawson responded that the neighborhood was aware of the rezoning request. Commissioner Ball stated that the Planning Staff had done a good job of handling the relationship between rezoning requests and land use plan amendments. He stated that specific rezoning requests do sometimes require Land Use Plan Amendments. A motion was made to approve the amendment to the Central. City District Land Use Plan. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. A motion was then made to approve the requested 0-1 zoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Brandon). Commissioner McCarthy stated that she wanted it placed in the record that she specifically supported Commissioner Hawn's position on hearing Land Use Plan Amendments prior to hearing rezoning requests. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 22 Z-6110 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Mrs. Harold Page Mrs. Harold Page 3818 Baseline Road Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 No specific development is proposed. 2.34 acres Single Family residence SURROUNDING LAND JISE AND Z I G North - Mobile Home Park; zoned R-2 South - Single Family residence and Nonconforming Veterinary Clinic; zoned R-2 East - Single Family homes; zoned R-2 and 0-3 West - Vacant structure and outbuildings; zoned R-2 ENGINEER COMMENTS One driveway will be permitted and the location will require approval. Right-of-way with 5 foot utility easement is acceptable due to the built -out nature of this roadway. Stormwater Detention will be required. A grading permit is required prior to start of any construction. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs East District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Residential to the north and, Office to the south. Staff cannot recommend changing the Plan further at this time. Therefore, only the southern portion of the site should be zoned. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 2.34 acre tract located at 3818 Baseline Road from "R-2" Single Family to 110-3" General Office. The property has 170 feet of frontage on Baseline Road and is approximately 600 feet deep. The applicant's hoarse is located on the northern end April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Z-611 (Cont.) of the tract. The remainder of the property is vacant. No specific development is proposed for the site should the 0-3 request be approved. The property is located in area which is primarily zoned R- 2, although there are many nonconforming uses in close proximity. To the north and northeast of the site are several nonconforming mobile home parks. Across Baseline Road to the south is a large area of single family homes with some nonconforming businesses fronting onto Baseline. The R-2 zoned property adjacent to the west is occupied by a vacant building which formerly contained a business. Adjacent to the east are several single family homes, three of which are zoned R-2 and one which recently was zoned 0-3. A large area of vacant, 0-3 zoned property is located on the north side of Baseline Road, approximately 1 block west of the site. At the time the property adjacent to the east was rezoned 0- 3, the Geyer Springs East District Land Use Plan was amended to show office use for the first 200 feet of properties fronting onto Baseline Road, west of Community Road. A portion of the applicant's property was included in the Plan amendment. This new plan amendment would support the requested 0-3 reclassification for the southern 200 feet of the applicant's property; that portion closest to Baseline. The remaining 400 feet to the north is shown as Mixed Residential.. Staff cannot support further changes to the Plan at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN Staff recommends approval of 0-3 zoning for only the southern 200 feet of this site as supported by the adopted Land Use Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: {APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant, Mrs. Harold Page, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had amended the application to conform to staff's recommendation that only the southern 200 feet of the site be rezoned o-3. Staff recommended approval of the amended application. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as amended by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 23 Z-6113 Owner: - Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Clifton and Beverly Peck Impac Hotel Group by Monte Teverbaugh 1401 South Shackleford Rezone from 0-3 to 0--2 Construct Residence Inn by Marriott 3.20 acres vacant, wooded SURROUhMING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant tract; zoned 0-2 South - Proposed Heart Hospital under construction; zoned O-2 East - vacant tract; zoned 0-3 West - Koger Office Park; zoned 0-3 and Vacant tract; zoned C-2 ENGINEERING OMMENTS A grading permit with ADOC&E permit is required prior to construction. Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Drive shall be 25 feet from property line to edge of drive and be 36 feet in width. Sidewalks shall have CLR standard ramps installed. Dedicate right -of --way to 45 feet from centerline for Shackleford Road. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way for Kaufman Road and complete 1/2 street improvements for Kaufman Road. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the 1-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Office. There is no land use issue. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 3.20 acre tract from 110-3" General Office to u0-21, Office and Institutional. A conditional use permit request to allow April 25, 1996 SUHDIVISIOI3 .ITEM NO.,; 23 Z-6113 (Qnt.) for the development of a 96 room hotel is an associated item on this agenda (Z-6113-A). The property is currently vacant and wooded. It is located in an area of Office and Commercial zoning containing such uses as the Koger office park across Shackleford and the Heart Hospital being constructed on the property adjacent to the south. The office zoned properties to the northeast are now vacant. The requested 0-2 zoning conforms to the I-430 District Land Use Plan which recommends office for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-2 zoning. PLANNING C©MMISSIdN ACTIGIJ: (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes. 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NQ. _ 24 Z-6112 Owner: Maxine Taylor and Dr. J. Thomas Jumper Applicant: James Harney Location: 1818 -1824 Georgia Request: Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Purpose: Construct two, 4 unit apartment buildings Size: .51± acres Existing Use: Two Single Family dwellings North - Large Apartment complex; zoned C-3 South - Single Family homes; zoned R-2 East Duplex and Apartments; zoned R-2 and R-5 West - Multifamily development; zoned PRD ENGINEERING COMMENTS The applicant dedicated 5 feet of right-of-way to bring Georgia Street right-of-way to 20 feet from centerline. Master Street Plan is for 25 feet from centerline. Dedicate the additional right-of-way for Master Street Plan or dedicate a 5 foot drainage and utility easement. Ohio Street is 26 feet without a sidewalk and existing right-of- way of 30 feet. Dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way and construct sidewalk on frontage. LAND E ELEME T The site is located in the west Little Rock District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Multifamily. There is no land use issue. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone these two, abutting lots from "R-2" Single Family to "R-51, Urban. Residence. The site consists of two, 75 foot by 150 foot, residential lots each of which contains a small, frame single family residential structure. The applicant proposes April d5, 1996 SUBDIVISIC)1� ITEM I Q, : 24 Z-6112 (Cont. to remove these structures and build in their place, two 4- unit apartment buildings. The proposed use will comply with the lot area per family standards of the R-5 district. The property is located within an area comprised primarily of multifamily properties. The area of multifamily is itself located on the northern fringe of a large single family neighborhood and serves as a transition from the single family to the heavily commercial Cantrell Road area. Several multifamily developments are Located in close proximity to the site, ranging from duplexes to large apartment developments. The proposed use is not out of character with the neighborhood and the requested R-5 zoning conforms to the west Little Rock District Land Use Plan which recommends multifamily for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested R-5 zoning. PLANNING CPMMIj2SIQN ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant, Jim Harney, was present. There were several objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted the letters and petitions opposed to the item which had been presented to the Commission. It was also noted that approximately 27 phone calls in opposition had been received by the Planning Staff. Mr. Harney addressed the Commission in support of his application. He noted that the properties were now occupied by small, frame residential structures that were over 44 years old. He stated that these structures had lost value due to their age and state of repair. Mr. Harney then described the various multifamily developments in the area. He stated that the Land Use Plan recommended multifamily for the site and that he had worked with staff to devise a site plan for the proposed development. Mr. Harney then described the proposed development of 2, Heritage Style townhouses with 16 parking spaces and appropriate Landscaping. Mr. Harney concluded by asking for approval of the R-5 zoning. Mrs. Bill Stiles, of 1825 Georgia, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning. She stated that the area was oversaturated with multifamily. Mrs. Stiles stated that 2 April A5, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO ; _ 24 Z-6112 (Con traffic was heavy on Georgia Street and additional multifamily would add to traffic congestion. Cindy Dawson, Assistant City Attorney, commented that R-5 zoning would allow up to 5 units on each lot. Mr. Harney responded that he was only going to construct a 4 unit building on each lot. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that the applicant could offer to limit the use to 4 units as a condition of the rezoning. Commissioner Lichty stated that the Commission wanted to see a site plan and he noted the PRDrs in the area. Mr. Carney responded that those multifamily sites had been developed as PRD's due to site development constraints and multibuilding concerns, not because they were multifamily uses. He again noted that the plan supported multifamily in the area. Mr. Harney again spoke briefly in support of his application. John Carson, of 1808 Georgia, addressed the Commission in. opposition to the rezoning. He stated that multifamily in the area was located north of Ohio Street and east of Florida Street. Mr. Carson stated that this R-5 request would be the first step towards bringing multifamily into the neighborhood. He stated that he had been advised by an appraiser that multifamily development would devalue adjacent single family property. Mr. Carson stated that there were 15 vacant apartments within 4 blocks of this site and stated that there was no demand for additional apartments in the area. He asked that the application be denied. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Harney if he had a proposed site plan. Ms. Dawson interjected that the site plan was not an issue, that the request was for R-5 rezoning. Commissioner Brandon responded that she still wanted an idea of the proposed development. Mr. Harney passed out site plans of the proposed apartment development and photographs of a similar project. A discussion then followed concerning the difference between condominium and apartment developments. Mr. Carney noted that both were multifamily uses that involved multiple dwellings on a site. Where was disagreement about the relationship of condominiums and apartments and of owner occupied and renter occupied dwellings. John Carson asked the Commission to take note of phone calls, letters, petitions and persons at the meeting who were opposed to the rezoning. 3 April 25, 1996 SUsnIV—IgIq ITEM NO. 24 Z-6112 (Cont.) Shani Cable, of 1708 Georgia, spoke against the proposed rezoning. She described the neighborhood and spoke of the relationships which had developed between neighbors. Ms. Cable stated that renters don't care about the upkeep of their properties. She described new single family homes which had been built in the area. Ms. Cable concluded by asking the Commission to reflect the City`s commitment to neighborhoods by denying the rezoning. In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Ms. Cable stated that the neighborhood had no organized association. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Harney stated that he had a contract to purchase the properties from Maxine Taylor and Dr. Jumper. He stated that Ms. Taylor occupied the house on Georgia and that Dr. Jumper lived out of town. Mr. Harney stated that all of the newer development in the area south of Ohio Street was multifamily of one sort or the other. Commissioner Rahman asked if there was not another property in the area that would work for Mr. Harney. Mr. Harney responded that there was not. The Commission asked when the District Land Use Plan had last been reviewed. Mr. Carney responded that the area plan was reviewed in response to the rezoning request. He stated that Staff was satisfied that the Plan correctly reflected the uses in the area and that staff was supporting the R-5 request. There was more discussion of the distinctions between owner occupied condominiums and renter occupied apartments. Mr. Carney noted that one of the existing single family homes on the site was in fact renter occupied and that the property owner lived out of town. Commissioner Lichty stated that ownership did make a difference. A motion was made to approve the application. The vote was 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent; denying the R-5 request. The applicant was informed of his right to appeal to the Hoard of Directors. Mr. Harney asked the commissioners to drive out to the neighborhood in question. 4 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 25 Z- 120 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John L. Burnett, Trustee James Hathaway, Jr. East side of cooper Orbit Road; north of Spring valley Manor Subdivision Rezone from R-2 to MF-12 Future apartment development 33.8t acres Vacant, wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE MD ZONING North - vacant, wooded; zoned R-2 South - Vacant, wooded; East - Vacant, wooded; west - vacant, wooded; ENGINEERING COMMENTS zoned R-2 and Oasis Retreat; zoned R-2 zoned R-2 zoned R-2 See additional comments in S-1100 File; Capitol Lakes Estates. Dedicate right--of-way for Cooper Orbit Road and unnamed minor arterial per Master Street Plan. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The proposal is to realign Cooper Orbit Road and extend a new arterial to the west through a residential. subdivision. At the intersection of the collector and minor arterial an area of MF-12 zoning is requested. staff is willing to {consider a higher density of residential use at the intersection. with the topography MF-12 would allow for a development to be built with the existing site. The request is low density for Multifamily and staff believes appropriate. A change to Low Density Multifamily is proposed.. April 25, 1996 OUBDIVa SIOr� ITEM 25 Z--6120 n TAFF ANALYSI The request before the Commission is to rezone a 33.8± acre tract from 11R-2" Single Family to "MF- 12'1 Multifamily. The 33.8± acres are within a 190+ acre development which is item No. 5 on this agenda (Capitol Lakes Estates -- Preliminary Plat; S-1100). The property proposed for multifamily zoning is located at the northern edge of the Capitol Lakes Estates development, at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street. The minor arterial street bisects the multifamily property into two parcels, the smaller parcel being on the north side of the street and the larger being on the south. The property is now vacant and heavily wooded. No immediate development is proposed for the multifamily sites. The surrounding properties are for the most part all zoned R-2 and are themselves vacant and heavily wooded. The Spring Valley Manor Residential Subdivision is located south of the 190+ acre Capitol Lakes development; well separated from the proposed multifamily. The oasis retreat is adjacent to the north of the smaller tract proposed for multifamily. The Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan currently recommends Single Family for the site. The multifamily property is to be located at the intersection of a realigned collector (Cooper orbit Road) and a new minor arterial street. Staff believes the relatively low density proposed, MF-12, is appropriate for the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested MF-12 zoning and of an amendment to the Ellis Mountain District Land Use Plan to reflect Low Density Multifamily for the site. PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION; (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and discussed staff's review of the District Land Use Plan. He stated that staff felt this low density MF-12 zoning request was reasonable for the property. He recommended approval of the requested zoning and of an amendment to the District Land Use Plan. Mr. Hathaway addressed the Commission in support of the application. He gave a brief history of the proposal and made reference to a previous MF-18 zoning request for 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 Z-6120 (Cont. property farther south, adjacent to Spring Valley Manor Subdivision. Mr. Hathaway stated that the 33.8± acres of multifamily was within a proposed 192 acre development. He stated that this was the way that the Planning Commission should review items, look at the large picture. Mr. Hathaway stated that proposed buyers would know how the property in the area is going to be used. Mr. Hathaway discussed the relationship of the multifamily zoning to the Spring Valley Manor neighborhood and the Oasis Retreat. He stated that he had attempted to meet with persons at the Oasis but had been unable to do so. Mr. Hathaway then described the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road and the construction of the new east/west arterial street. He stated that the 33.8t acres of multifamily would actually be closer to 30 acres once the required right-of-way was dedicated. Mr. Hathaway stated that the total density of the 192 acre development would be 3.4 units per acre, even including the multifamily. He noted staffs recommendation of approval of a Land Use Plan Amendment and of the proposed rezoning. There was then a discussion of the proposed Capital Lakes Estates preliminary plat, which includes the proposed MF-12 property. It was noted that the Plat had been deferred to the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. Commissioner Adcock asked if there was a buffer proposed where Capitol Lakes Estates is adjacent to Spring Valley Manor. Mr. Hathaway responded that no buffer was necessary since the plat proposed single family where adjacent to Spring Valley Manor. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Hathaway stated that the development was pursuing all issues related to the site including annexation, platting, zoning and utilities. He stated that all of those issues would be resolved or the land would not be developed. There was then a brief discussion of the site's topography. J. Mark Davis, spokesperson for the Oasis Renewal Center, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning. He described the Centers operations and handed out information on the Oasis. He stated that oasis was mindful of a property owners right to develop his property but was also concerned about the relationship of the proposed multifamily to the Oasis site. He stated that the multifamily property would negatively impact the Oasis. Mr. David asked that the zoning be denied. 3 April 25■ 199+6 BQBDIVISIQN ITEM NO.: 25 Z-6124 (Cont.) In response to a question from Chairman Woods, Mr. Davis stated that oasis was opposed to the multifamily zoning on both the north and south sides of the proposed arterial street_ In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Davis stated that most of the Oasis operations are located in the north west quadrant of the oasis property, on the north side of lake. Commissioner Lichty asked how the oasis could be opposed to the multifamily on the south side of the proposed arterial street when it would be so greatly separated from the oasis operation. David Scherer, of the Public works Department, discussed the Master Street. Plan and the proposed streets. Dana Carney noted that the right-of-way for the proposed arterial and realigned Cooper orbit Road would be dedicated through the rezoning. Commissioner Hawn, stated that he could not understand how the oasis could object to the MF-12 density. He suggested that the oasis should have purchased additional property if they wanted more solitude. In response to a question from commissioner Adcock, Mr. Davis stated that the oasis was not opposed to the earlier rezoning request which proposed MF-18 zoning adjacent to the Spring valley Manor Subdivision. Chairman Woods commented that it appeared that the Oasis did not work with the developer where the residents of Spring Valley Manor did. Commissioner Lichty asked if the developer would consider a lower density for the approximately 8 acres on the north side of the proposed arterial street. Mr. Hathaway responded that he would consider a modification but that he had been told that the oasis Hoard was unwilling to negotiate. Commissioner Ball asked if it was imperative that the 8 acres north of the arterial be zoned multifamily. Mr. Hathaway responded by asking where multifamily would be more appropriate than where he had proposed. Mr. Hathaway stated that he was willing to offer a condition that the multifamily would not be developed unless the plat was approved, the streets built, the property annexed and sewer service brought to the site. He stated that the developer needed to know if the multifamily was feasible. There was a discussion of dropping the 8 acres north of the proposed arterial street from the rezoning request. 4 April 25, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM 2 Z-612 (Cont.) Commissioner Putnam stated that the problem seemed to be how to secure the Oasis. In response to a question from Mr. Hathaway, Rusty Sparks, President of the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, confirmed that the applicant had worked with the neighborhood to resolve several issues. Commissioner Ball asked if the rezoning request could be deferred to coincide with the Commission's review of the plat. Mr. Hathaway asked what issue there was about the plat that affected the rezoning. He noted that the right- of-way for the arterial street and Cooper Orbit Road would be established through the rezoning. Mr. Hathaway offered to attach the condition that the zoning would become null and void if the plat was not approved. Staff noted that the Rezoning Ordinance could be written so that it becomes effective when the plat is approved. Rusty Sparks addressed the Commission in support of the application. Bill Worthen addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented persons who own property north of the western end of the proposed Capitol Lake Estates. He did not voice an opinion about the rezoning. Joe Gillespie, President of the Oasis Board, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning request. He stated that he had advised Mr. Davis to voice the Oasis Board's opposition to rezoning. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Gillespie if he had stated that he would not negotiate with the applicant. Mr. Gillespie responded by stating "never say never.•• Commissioner Ball stated that the Commission was being put in the position of voting yes or no and that there did not appear to be any negotiation. Mr. Gillespie stated that he did not believe the Oasis would survive with multifamily development adjacent to it. Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Hathaway if he wanted a vote on the application. Mr. Hathaway responded that he would like a vote and that he would work with the Oasis people. Mr. Hathaway again offered the condition that the zoning would only go into effect upon approval of the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat. 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISIQ ITEM NO 25 Z-612.(Cont.) A motion was made to approve the Land Use Plan ,amendment, The vote was 9 ayes, 4 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Putnam). A motion was then made to approve the MF-12 zoning with the condition as offered by Mr. Hathaway. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 4 abstaining (Putnam, Hawn, Adcock and McCarthy). 0 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 26 Z-61.1 NAME: L09ATION: OWNER/APPLICANT. PROPOSAL: ,STAFF ANALYSIS: Kiernan Day -Care Family Home Special Use Permit 9204 west 6th Street Evelyn Kiernan A special use permit is requested to allow the occupant of 9204 West 6th Street to operate a day -case family home. The property is zoned R-2. The general purpose of Section 36-54 states: "Special use permits provide a method of control over certain types of land uses which, while not requiring the full review process of the conditional use permits, do require some review procedure which allows for determination of their appropriateness within the neighborhood for which they are proposed and for public comment." These uses include bed and breakfast hotels, family care facilities and day care family homes. The site and location criteria established by the Zoning Ordinance for day care family homes are as follow: a. This use may be located only in a single-family home, occupied by the care giver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedures established by the State of Arkansas. C. The use is limited to ten (10) children including the care givers.. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six (6) children from households other than the care givers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right.. Separation spacing requirements for family care facilities will be determined by the planning commission so as not to adversely impact the surrounding properties and April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM 2 Z-611(Cont.) neighborhood. Issues that the planning commission will consider during its review include: (1) The total number of similar facilities and their spacing within the neighborhood, (2) Existing zoning and land use patterns. (3) Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. (4) Provision for readily accessible public or quasi -public transportation. 9204 West 6th Street is located at the southern fringe of a single family and two family residential neighborhood. All surrounding properties are zoned R-2. Single family homes are adjacent to the east, west and north. Across 6th Street to the south is the I-630 right-of-way. The site consists of a single story residential structure which is typical of structures in the neighborhood. The property has a back yard enclosed by a chain -link fence which provides adequate play area. The site contains a paved driveway with room for two vehicles. The primary use of the property will remain residential. No signage beyond that allowed in single family zones will be permitted. The applicant must receive any required licenses from the State Department of Human Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow a day-care family home subject to compliance with the site and location criteria established for day-care family homes in Section 36-54 of the Code of Ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant, Evelyn Kiernan, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, with conditions, The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM 27 FILE -9 6 NAME: CLARA COMBS -- DEFERRAL OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRE- MENTS (TIME EXTENSION) LOCATION: On the west side of Henderson Rd., on the south side of Raines Rd., approximately 3.5 miles west of the Crystal Valley Rd. -Stagecoach Rd, intersection, outside the City Limits, at 7804 Henderson Rd. APPLICANT: MS. CLARA COMBS 7804 Henderson Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-2925 AREA: 0.379 ACRES NUMBER OF LQTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential, PLANNINQ DISTRICT: Crystal Valley (17) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: N. A. The applicant, by letter dated July 16, 1991, explained that, because of severe health problems of her elderly parents, she needed approval for the placement of a mobile home next to her parents, horse on their property to provide a residence for her in close enough proximity to them for her to be able to care for them. She stated that the mobile home would be removed from the property upon the death of her parents, at which time she would occupy the home. The Planing Commissions, on September 10, 1991, heard the request. There were no objectors present. The mobile home was approved to be placed on the property for 2 years. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 1994, Ms. Combs requested an extension of the approval, saying that conditions had not changed; that her parents were still in ill health and that her father was completely house bound. She explained that, without her living next door to her parents to take care of them they would not be able to remain in the home, and would have to be relocated to a nursing home. She added that her husband was ill, and that the family had no other options available to them. On July 26, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the time extension for an additional 2 years. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISI ITEM NO.: 27 {Cgnt.} FILE NO.: S-936 By letter dated March 4, 1996, Ms. Combs explained that: "The health of my parents has gotten worse. My dad has had some light strokes that have left him with a weekend bladder muscle; therefore he has to wear diapers, which have to be changed. My mother cannot handle this by herself. Her eyesight has gotten so bad that she has problems using the washing machine. My dad sleeps in a hospital bed and has to be transferred. from the bed to the living room in a wheel chair, then back at night. Mother cannot handle this. Sometimes he has to bet up in the night. They really need someone close to them." A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a time extension on the previously approved deferral of the enforcement of the Subdivision Ordinance regulations relative to multiple residences on a single lot. H. EXISTIILG CONDITIONg: The setting of the site is rural, outside the City Limits. There are a number of homes along Henderson Rd., including one abandoned and burned -out moblie home immediately to the north of the Combs' property. The subject mobile home is located approximately 20 feet from the side of the applicant's parents' home. C. E GI EERI TILITY MME T : There were no comments requested or received. D. ISSUES/LE+GALLTECHNICA /DESIGN: Sec. 36-2 defines the a "Lot" as "a parcel of land, legally defined in a recorded deed or a recorded plat, fronting on a public dedicated right-of-way or other approved private drive", and establishing one(l) building site which is to comply with the requirements of Chapter 31." The Subdivision Regulations require separate lots for each dwelling. The applicant cannot meet this requirement; therefore, a deferral of the enforcement of the regulations is requested. 2 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 27 lCont.) FILE NQ 5-936 E. ALY I : The applicant's property is outside the City Limits in a rural and isolated area. There have been no objections relayed to -staff, either at the previous Planning Commission hearings or by any other communications. There is apparently a valid need for the applicant to reside on the property with her parents, yet to maintain a separate household, F. STAFF RE MME pATI Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension on the deferral of the application of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff recommends approval of an additional two (2) year deferral, or until the death of both parent, whichever occurs sooner. Upon expiration of the deferral time period, the mobile home is to be removed completely from the property. PLA .ING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that there are no outstanding issues to be resolved, and recommended approval of the time extension for an additional two (2) years, or until the applicant's parents are no longer the residents of the home. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 28 FILE NO • Z--3946-A NAME: KIMBALL & BODEMP,N ADDITION -- SHORT -FORM PRD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: 705-711 S. VALENTINE ST. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: DON DOWNS 4601 W. 61st. St. Little Rock, Alt 72209 AREA: 0.284 ACRES CURRENT Z I PRD ORIGINAL APPLICANT: DON DOWNS 4601 W. 61st. St. Little Rock, AR 72209 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEWSTREET: 0 ORIGINAL ZONING: R-4 PLAMING DISTRICT: I-630 (9) CENSUS TRACT: 14 BACKGROUND: On February 22, 1983, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of a 6-unit townhouse project. Subsequently. on March 15, 1983, the requested PRD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,414. The existing R-4 zoning was changed to PRD. STAFF UPDATE: Section 36-458(a) states: "The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD ... approval be revoked —if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final plan...." Development of the PRD has never been undertaken, with no building permits having been issued for construction of the townhouse building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the PRD be revoked, and that the R-4 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PRD, be reinstated. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 28 (Cont.),_.. FILE NO. Z-3946-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25■ 1996) Staff recommended revocation of the PRD, and reported that there had been no response from the property owner subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail of the pending action. The revocation was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval of the revocation, and the revocation was approved with the vote of 10 ayes. 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO.: 29 _ _.__. FILE NO. Z-4080-A NAME: BUNNELL`S -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and North St., at 1517 Cantrell Rd. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: FRANK WHITBECK SIGNATURE LIFE INSURANCE Co. JOE BUNNELL & FRANK WHITBECK P. O. Box 3437 Savers Federal & Loan Building Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.43 ACRES NUMBER OF LgTS: 2 FT. NEW TREET: Q CURRENT ZONING: PCD ORIGINAL ZONING: 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: Downtown (5) CENSUS TRACT 9 By letter dated October 4, 1983, Frank Whitbeck, owner of the referenced property, asked for approval of a PCD. His letter outlined the proposal: the eastern -most lot, Lot 5, with an existing home on it, was proposed to be used as an antique shop, but approval of other C-1 uses was also requested, and, the western -most lot, Lot 6, which had an existing "off -premise" outdoor advertising sign on it and a parking lot, was proposed to retain the sign, plus have improvements made to the parking lot to serve the business use on the adjoining lot. The applicant proposed to provide the required turn -around for the existing parking lot, and to border the paved area with railroad ties. He indicated that the entire area would be landscaped. Subsequent- ly, on December 6, 1983, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,557. The existing 0-3 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: The present condition of the site is: the residential structure on Lot 5 is gone, all that remains being the concrete slab (there is no "landscaping," anywhere on this lot); and, on Lot 5, the paved parking lot remains (there is grass on the lot, plus some red tip photianias under and in lane with the sign) but the proposed modifications to it have not been made (i.e., it is not bordered with railroad ties and the turn -around was not constructed). The concrete building which was located on Lot 5 at the time of the approval is gone. The outdoor advertising April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 i-CQnt.) FILE NO.: Z-4080-A sign, which was on the site when the PCD was approved, is still there. No final plan was submitted and there have been no "improvements" to the site (except for the razing the buildings). There have been no building permits issued, and the proposed use was, evidently, never put in glace. Ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-4:54(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final ...plan." Section 36-458(a) states: "The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD ... approval be revoked...if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final plan...." No "final plan" was approved, either by staff or by the Planning Commission, and development of the PRD has never been undertaken. The existing residential structure, which was to be used for an antique shop is no longer on the site. Since the "off -premise"" outdoor advertising sign was in place prior to the PCD zoning (it was a non -conforming use at that time), it is unaffected by the revocation of the PCD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the 0-3 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the property owner, indicating that he had had an out-of-town trip scheduled for several months, and that he asked that the revocation of his PCD be deferred until the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. Staff recommended the requested deferral be approved and the deferral was included in the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions.. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NQ., 30a FILE NO.: Z--391 -B NAME: OWENS -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Baseline Rd. and Dailey Dr. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: DAVID KENNEDY, ET. A.L. BASELINE AND DAILEY DR. 30 Highway 25 INVESTMENT GROUP Conway, AR 72032 c/o Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Rd. and Little Rock, AR 72202 Bryan L. Savells 103 Royale Texarkana, Tx 75503 AREA: 4.05 ACRES NUMBER OF i.QTS: 2 FT, NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD and 0-3 ORIGINAL ZONING: 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: Geyer Springs West (15) CENSUS TRACT: 41.06 On January 17, 1984, a 4.05 acre tract (with an east -west dimension of 335.33 feet; a north -south dimension of 526.00 feet) was zoned from. R-2 to 0-3 in Ordinance No. 14,576. Then, on February 14, 1984, a request was presented to the Planning Com- mission for development of an office and mini --warehouse project, and, on March 7, 1984, a PCD rezoning was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 1.4,621, for the same 4.05 acre tract. The 0-3 zoning, which had been approved on January 17, 1984, was changed to PCD. Subsequently, in 1992, the owner of the 0.65 acre corner lot of the PCD site (with an east -west dimension of 144.38 feet and a north --south dimension of 197.05 feet) requested rezoning of this corner 0.65 acre lot to 0-3. The request, however, was for a rezoning from R-2 to 0-3; the Zoning Map did not reflect either the PCD or the underlying 0-3 zoning of the site. This request was heard by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1.992. The rezoning was approved by the Board of Directors_ on November 11, 1992, in Ordinance No. 16,292. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM(ContFILE Z- 1 -B STAFFUPDATE: ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon —approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan. " "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan having been submitted for approval. No time extensors have been requested. The zoning Map failed to show either the January 17, 1984 0-3 or March 7, 1984 PCD rezonings of the site; therefore, when the corner lot was rezoned 0-3 in November 11, 1992, the requested rezoning was from R-2 to 0-3. Currently, the Zoning Map shows the corner lot at 0-3, with the remainder of the PCD site being shown as R-2. TAFF RECOMMENDATI Staff recommends that approval of the PCD be voided, and: 1) that the 0-3 zoning_ of the corner 0.65 acre lot, approved on November 11, 1992, in Ordinance No. 16,292, be reaffirmed; and, 2) that the 0-3 underlying zoning of the remainder of the 4.05 acre PCD site, approved on. January 1.7, 1984, in Ordinance No. 14,576, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANNING COMMISgION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff recommended revocation of the PCD, and reported that the owner of one of the lots had contacted staff to indicate that he had no problem returning the site to the previous zoning district; there has been no contact from the second property owner, subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail, regarding his reaction to the pending action. This item was included in the Consent Agenda for action to revoke and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM K0.Q0b FILE NO.: Z-4853 r+7AE$: MEADOWPARK VILLAGE -- LONG -FORM PRIG (REVOCATION) LOCATI{QN: On the north side of Baseline Rd., approximately 0.5 mile west of Stagecoach Rd., outside the City Limits. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: Birch Brooks, Inc. Butler -Avery Homes c/o RPM Realty west Memphis, AR P. O. Box 7300 Little Rock, AR 72217 41.4 ACRES 1NWBER OF LOTS: 1 FT._NEW STREET: 7,200 CURRENT ZONING: PRD ORIGINAL ZONING: R-2 PL&MING DI TRI T: Crystal Valley (17) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 On June 30, 1987, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of 264 "zero lot line" homes on 41.4 acres of a 55-acre tract. Subsequently, on July 21, 1987, the requested PRD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 15,320. The existing R-2 zoning was changed to PRD. STAFF -UPDATE: Ordinance No. 15,320 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three. (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final ... plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PRD has never been undertaken, with no final plan having been submitted for approval. No requester for time extensions have been filed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that approval of the PRD be voided, and that the R-2 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PRD, be reinstated. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVI S ION ITEM NO. 30% f.pont. ) FILE NO. Z--4853 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff recommends revocation of the PRD. There has been no response from the property owner subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail of the pending action. This item was included in the Consent Agenda for action to revoke and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NO :30c FILE O.: Z--4415 NAME: MCGEE -r-- SHORT -FORM PRD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: On the west side of Reservoir Rd., approximately 400 feet south of Claremore Dr. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: Newman E. McGee, Jr. c/o 4 Sunset Hill Little Rock, AR 72207 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: Dr. Newman McGee 6420 Frontage Rd. Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 0.76 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 CURRENT ZONING: PRD PLANNING DISTRICT: West Little Rock (3) CENSUS TRACT: 22.04 s � Li FT. NEW �"ITREET : 0 ORIGINAL ZONING: R-2 On March 12, 1985, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of 3 single-family homes, with a shared private drive access off Reservoir Rd., on the tract. Subsequently. on April 2, 1985, the requested PRD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,853. The existing R-2 zoning was changed to PRD. STAFF UPDATE: Ordinance No. 14,853 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PRD has never been undertaken, with no final plan having been submitted for approval. No time extensons have been requested. STAFF_RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that approval of the PRD be voided, and that the R-2 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PRD, be reinstated. April 25, 1996 SUBDI V I O IQ1 ITEM n FILE Z-441 PLANNING COMMISSIQH ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff recommends revocation of the PRD. There has been no response from the property owner subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail of the pending action. This item was included in the Consent Agenda for action to revoke and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM NQr 30d _ FILE NO. Z-1807=B NAME: MARKHAM CENTER. SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCA'TION) LOCATION: At the northwest corner of W. Markham St. and Rose St. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: Elizabeth T. Murphy 34 River Ridge Rd. Little Rock, AR 72227 and Horace R. Murphy Insurance Trust c/o 34 River Ridge Rd. Little Rock, AR 72227 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: AMR Real Estate, Inc. 217 W. 2nd. St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.955 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. WSTREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PCD ORIGINAL ZONING: R-5 and 0-3 PLANNING -DISTRICT: Heights-Hillcrest (4) CENSUS TRACT: 15 BACKGROUND: On May 16, 1989, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of a "neighborhood shopping center" with approval of C-3 uses requested. Subsequently, on June 20, 1989, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 15,699. The existing R-5 zoning of the north four lots (Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4), and the existing 0-3 zoning of the south three lots (Lots 10, 11, and 12) of Block 8, Glendale Addition, was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: Ordinance No. 15,699 states. "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon —approval of the (final) plan. - Section 36-454(d) of the Code of ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final ... plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PCD has never been undertaken, with no final plan having been submitted for approval. No time extensions have been requested. April 25, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 30d (Cont.) _FILE NO Z 18Q7-B STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that approval of the PCD be voided, and that the R-5 zoning of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the 0-3 zoning of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 8, Glendale Addition, which were in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PlLaMING QMMISS-IONA TI (APRIL 25, 1996) The applicant, Mrs. Liz Murphy, was present and objected to the revocation of the PCD. She reported that she had a number of offers pending for the sale and development of the property, and needed the property to retain its "PCD" zoning. Staff reiterated that the PCD had expired, and that no development of the site could take place without rezoning of the property. Staff has pointed out to Mrs. Murphy that there is no provision in the Ordinance. for "extending" a Planned Development, once it has expired. Staff has also pointed out that a Planned Development is designed for approval of a specific project, with specific uses and a specific site plan, not as a long-term -open-ended- rezoning of land. A motion was grade and seconded to recommend revocation of the expired PCD, and the motion was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM 0e FILE Z- 31 SAME: FLOWER SHOP -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Fair Park Blvd. and Maryland St. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: Torrence Flower Shoppe, Inc. 1311 W. 13th. St. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 10.3 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 CURRENT ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: I-630 (9) CENSUS TRA T. 18 Ke=* ORIGINAL APPLICANT: The Willis Group, Inc. 3817 W. 8t. St. Little Rock, AR 72204 FT. NEW TREET• 0 ORIGINAL ZONING. 0-1 On June 4, 1990, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of a retail flower shop business on the tract. Subsequently, on July 3, 1990, the requested PCD was approved by the Board. of Directors, in Ordinance No. 15,899. The existing 0-1 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE• Ordinance No. 15,899 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan having been, submitted for approval. No requests for time extensions have been made. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that approval of the PCD be voided, and that the 0-1 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. April 2b, 1996 OQBDIVISIpN ITEM NO.; 30e (Cont.) FILE NO,: Z-5310 PLANNING COM418SION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) staff recommends revocation of the PCD. There has been no response from the property owner subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail of the pending action. This item was included in the Consent Agenda for action to revoke and was approved with the vote of 14 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and U abstentions. 2 April 25, 1996 ITEM f FILE N Z-1412-B IIiAME: HEALTHY LAWNS AND SHRUBS -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: On the south side of W. Capitol Ave., approximately 0.1 mile west of Rodney Parham Rd., at 7919 W. 5th. St. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: Earl Brewer, Jr., Administrator Stan McDaniel Estate of Ella Marie Lorie, deceased c/o Frank Whitback c/o Thomas S. Russell, Attorney at Law Savers Federal & Loan Bldg. P. O. Box 1012 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA; 2.82 M MBER QF LOTS: 1 CURRENT ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: West Little Rock (3) CENSUS TRA T: 21.01 BACKGROUND: FT. NEW STREET• 0 ORIGINAL ZONING: R--2 On April 10, 1984, the applicant presented a request to the Planning Commission for development of a greenhouse for a lawn maintenance and landscaping business on the tract. Subsequently, on June 5, 1984, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in ordinance No. 14,669. The existing R-2 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: Ordinance No. 14,669 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan." "Failure of the applicant to file (a request for a time extension) may result in revocation of the approval." Development of the PCD was never undertaken, with no final plan having been submitted for approval, and the administrator of the estate of the property owner, represented by his attorney, requested abandonment of the PCD, with restablishment of the R-2 zoning. April 25, 1996 SUBDIVI,SIQI� ITEM f(Cont.)FILE Z-1412-B �y�+ �i; '[Kill iyph"mil+ Staff recommends that approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the R--2 zoning of the site, which was in ,place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANKING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff recommends revocation of the PCD. There has been no response from the property owner subsequent to being sent notice by Certified Mail of the pending action. This item was included in the Consent Agenda for action to revoke and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 01, 0 z f/) U! 0 0 z z z a J (L ����eeeea��oova© �CC�IiC���O �eAee��eeee� w000eoi00000 � H a z >4 04 x z � xnNzo cap+ E4 xn zA ❑>4 W�Ht❑i) as +�+���+� as Z co { t , 7+ x w '+ W W ❑ W UCH W❑ wUv]H a z 0z0x wa W ° a u ZUE40Ux�X4 uMNz]UzH❑C H wa H449Q 4a:D0H 4 9�❑a za4wzaHa,waaz ❑awzax H z W CA i W BO April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9.30 p.m. S re tea-