Loading...
pc_03 22 1994subf LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MARCH 22, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes were approved as mailed. III. Presentation of the Consent Agenda Staff presented the several items for consideration. IV. Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Chachere, Chairperson Brad Walker John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Ron Woods Emmett Willis, Jr. Ramsay Ball B. J. Wyrick None City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MARCH 22, 1994 DEFERRED ITEMS• A. Shackleford Road Industrial Park -- Preliminary Plat (S-1003) B. Zu Zu's -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -5524-B) PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Camp Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1008) 2. Chenal Business Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1009) 3. Apple Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5-1010) 4. Mary Kay Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1011) 5. Freeway Business Park -- Preliminary Plat (S-1012) 6. Big "K" Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S-1013) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: 7. P&L Investment Co. -- Amended Planned Commercial Development (Z -4016-D) 8. Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form Planned Office Development (Z -4249-A) 9. The Washing Well -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z -5106-A) 10. Walgreens Rodney Parham & Hinson -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z -5412-B) 11. The Oaks of Chenal, Lots B & G -- Amended Long -Form Planned Residential Development (Z -5588-A) 12. Barrow Mini -Storage -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5709) 13. Coulson Oil Co. -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5799) March 22, 1993 Planning Commission Agenda, Page 2 14. Bowman Commercial Park -- Long -Form Planned Office Development (Z-5800) 15. Medical Electronics, Inc. -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5801) 16. Dick Layton Buick -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5803) 17. Perkins Subdivision, Lot 1 -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5806) SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 18. Independence Square, Phase III -- Site Plan Review (5-357-A) 19. Baptist Adolescent Transitional Home -- Site Plan Review (Z-5804) CONDITIONAL USES: 20. Custom Services for the Home -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5796) 21. Byrd Daycare Center -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5797) 22. United Properties -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -4103-C) 23. Sonic Drive-in -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5807) RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT: 24. Birchwood Drive -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-206) REZONINGS• 25. A tract of land, being part of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, T -1-N, R -13-W, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas (in the vicinity of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St.), from 0-3 to C-2. OTHER MATTERS: 26. Chenal Commercial Park Preliminary Plat -- Time Extension (S-969) 27. University Office Park Preliminary Plat -- Recertification (5-203-B) March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO • S-1003 NAME: SHACKLEFORD ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATION: On the east side of Shackleford Road, approximately 0.2 miles south of Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: KELTON BROWN, SR. 13,700 Beckenham Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-2111 AREA: 10.65 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 ZONING: I-1 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 ENGINEER• ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY 200 Casey Drive Little Rock, AR 72118 851-8806 FT. NEW STREET: 650 PROPOSED USES: Industrial VARIANCES REOUESTED: Improvements to Shackleford Road STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of an industrial park. The site is a 10.65 acre tract, and the creation of 8 industrial lots is proposed. Shackleford road borders the site on the west, and a single internal street totaling 650 feet in length is proposed. The applicant proposes 50 foot building set -back lines along the internal street frontages; 70 foot along Shackleford Road. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east property line. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat for the development of a 8 -lot industrial park subdivision. The site is a 10.65 acre tract. One cul-de-sac internal street is proposed with a total length of 650 feet. The internal street is proposed to be constructed to Master Street Plan standards; no improvements to Shackleford Road are planned, although dedication of the required right-of-way is proposed. The Zoning Regulations specify a 70 foot front building line in the I-1 zoning district; the applicant proposes to conform to the required setback on the Shackleford frontage, but proposes a 50 foot setback along the internal street. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east boundary of the subdivision as a buffer to the residential area beyond. ' March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO • S-1003 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared, with the remains of the former use as a construction yard on the site. To the north is the site of the approved but as yet undeveloped "Buie Mini -storage PCD11. Presently that site is occupied by a non -conforming junk yard use. To the west and south is additional I-1 property. Along the east property line is a 50 foot wide OS strip, with R-2 property beyond. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office reports that the internal street layout must be redesigned to meet minimum Master Street Plan standards. The double cul-de-sacs design does not meet that standard. Dedication of right-of-way along Shackleford Road and improvements of Shackleford Road to Master Street Plan standards is required. The Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable to this development. (Engineering advises that the applicant needs to file an application for a State permit.) PAGIS monuments must be shown. A name for the proposed internal street must be shown. Water Works indicates that a water main extension will be required. A pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00 per front foot applies in addition to the normal connection charge for connections off Shackleford Road. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The application and Bill of Assurance indicate that the name of the proposed subdivision is Shackleford Road Industrial Park. The plat shows the name as Shackleford Industrial Park, leaving out "Road". Make the information consistent. The plat shows the width of the right-of-way of the internal street, but does not show the width or location of the street. This needs to be shown. 2 ' March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 Both the names and the book and page number or instrument number of the recording of all abutting subdivisions must be shown. where the abutting property is not subdivided, the names of the owners of that property must be shown. This information is not complete on the plat. The zoning classifications of abutting properties are to be shown. This is incomplete on the plat. A certificate of preliminary surveying accuracy is required to be included on the plat. This has been omitted. The I-1 zoning district requires site plan review by the Planning Commission prior to development. Each lot will have to be reviewed in the Commission as development is undertaken. E. ANALYSIS• There are fundamental problems with the design of this subdivision involving the layout of the internal street not meeting Master Street Plan standards, yet there is not a lot of flexibility for modifying the layout. The applicant needs to confer with the City Engineering office as a re -design is considered. The remaining deficiencies can be easily remedied. The anticipated use is in conformance with the zoning and the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this request pending a re -design of the internal street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1993) No one was present to present this item. Staff reported that a FAX had been received from the project engineer, Mr. Robert Holloway, indicating that a deferral was being requested until the February 8, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item, then, was not reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 4, 1994) Staff reported that the item could be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 8, 1994 hearing. The deferral was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent, and no abstentions. 3 ' March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 STAFF UPDATE The applicant has submitted a second request for a deferral of this item. A letter dated January 20, 1994 was received in which the applicant requests a deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission hearing. The applicant has indicated that he has negotiated with a buyer for the development of a significant portion of the proposed site, and that this is necessitating a substantive re -design of the site. It is noted that, pursuant to the Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section E, paragraph 9-b, the second deferral will require a renotificaiton of the property abutting property owners, and pursuant to paragraph 9-d, there can be no additional deferrals granted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Since the request for the additional deferral had been received, this fact was related to the Committee, and there was no discussion of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant's engineer, dated January 20, 1994, requesting a second deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission meeting. The request to defer the item was included in the Consent Agenda, and the approval of the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Neither the applicant nor the engineer were present. Staff indicated that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted, and that Engineering was reviewing the drawing. Staff reminded the Committee that no one had been present for either of the previous two Subdivision Committee meetings when the item was scheduled; the applicant had asked for deferrals on each of the two previous agendas, and had not made a presentation at the Committee meeting. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for a determination of the action to be taken in this situation and, if appropriate, to conduct the public hearing. 4 ' March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff related that the applicant has not presented the revised plat to the Subdivision Committee for review and comment, nor has the City Engineering Division prepared comments on the revised drawing. Staff reported that the Subdivision Committee had expressed concern that the applicant's engineer has failed to make the required presentation on 3 scheduled reviews (for the original review plus the 2 deferrals). Therefore, staff recommends that the item be deferred until the May 3, 1994 hearing to allow the Committee and staff the opportunity to properly review the submittal through the standard review process. Bob Holloway, the project engineer, explained that the applicant had been in negotiations for the sale of a large portion of the tract during the time of the first Subdivision Committee meeting, and that this had necessitated a total re -design of the plat and consequently the request for the deferral. Now, he continued, the design is finalized and he has been in contact with the City Engineering office and, he advised, there are no issues to be resolved. He related that he had simply not been reminded of the Committee meetings, and had forgotten to attend; that it was an oversight and not a matter of not wanting to attend. Commissioner Oleson commented that the applicant should make the required presentation to the Committee. Commissioner Nicholson commented that there should be consistency in enforcement of the requirement for making a presentation to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Holloway if there would be a problem with a deferral, to which Mr. Holloway responded that there would be no problem. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if he would propose a deferral. Mr. Holloway responded that he thought that all requirements had been met and was unaware of any problems. He asked for clarification of any problems. Commissioner Nicholson responded that Mr. Holloway needed to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting to find out what the problems are and to work out any problems with staff at that time. Mr. Holloway then asked the Commission to defer the hearing on the request until the May 3, 1994 meeting. 5 ' March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO • S-1003 A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the request, and the motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 6 ' March 22,. 1994 ITEM NO • B FILE NO.: Z -5524-B NAME: LOCATION• ZuZu's - Conditional Use Permit 401 South Bowman Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Tierney -Hale Partnership by Mark Buerkle of Rector Phillips Morse PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 2,400 square foot restaurant (eating place without drive-in service) on this C-1 zoned, .6± acre site. An area of outdoor dining is proposed in a patio area to be located in front of the building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Bowman Road, four blocks south of West Markham Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located in a narrow strip of land on the east side of Bowman Road which serves as a buffer between the intense commercial development on the west side of Bowman Road and the single family residential neighborhood located to the east. At the time this property was rezoned from 0-3 to C-1 in 1993, it was envisioned to be used for a small scale, low intensity commercial use which would provide a transition to single family from the larger more car -oriented commercial area. A highly intensive commercial use, such as the proposed restaurant, does not comply with the transition concept envisioned for this site and staff feels that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking A 2,400 square foot restaurant requires 24 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-way drive circling around the building with 33 on-site parking 'March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. A single entry point onto Bowman Road is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen must be constructed on the property line where adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The dumpster must be enclosed on three sides with an 8 foot high opaque wall or fence. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct handicapped ramps. Dedicate additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Bowman Road. 6. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along the north property line. The area of the former Birchwood Drive right-of-way, located adjacent to the south of this site, was retained as a utility easement. This must be shown on the site plan. The existing 8 inch water main must be indicated in this easement. A sewer main extension is required with easements. 7. Analysis The request before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 2,400 square foot restaurant, with outdoor dining, on this C-1 zoned property. The C-1 neighborhood commercial district is designed to accommodate limited retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas for the purpose of supplying daily household needs of the residents for food, drugs and personal services. Commercial uses within this district should not depend on market areas larger than the neighborhood served. Staff feels that the proposed restaurant is so designed and located as to serve the much broader commercial needs of the community and will have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being incompatible with and having an adverse effect on the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. 2 'March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO • B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Mark Buerkle and Maury Mitchell were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and outlined the City Engineer, Utility, and Landscape/Buffer Comments noted above. It was pointed out that this site plan is contingent upon the Board of Directors approving the abandonment of Birchwood Drive, located south of this site. The applicant was told to provide details on parking lot lighting, hours of business, delivery hours and waste pickup hours. In response to a question from a commissioner, Mark Buerkle stated that there would be no other activity in the outdoor dining area besides dining. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the City Engineer Comment to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Bowman Road. It was pointed out that the Master Street Plan requires a minimum of 45 feet from centerline and that there is currently a right-of-way of 40 feet from centerline. This portion of Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial street on the Master Street Plan. The applicant was advised to have a revised site plan and responses to the various issues raised back to staff within a week. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Mark Buerkle, Maury Mitchell and Andrew Hicks were present representing the application. There were several objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and stated that one letter of opposition had been received. Mark Buerkle then addressed the Commission. Mr. Buerkle gave a brief description of the operation and asked that the Commission approve the application. Ken Davis, of 417 Springwood Drive, then in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Davis proposed restaurant was too intense of a 3 addressed the Commission stated that the use for the property. March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO • B (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B Patty Roberts, of 11805 Birchwood Drive, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Mrs. Roberts stated that the odor, the noise and pests associated with the restaurant would have a negative impact on the adjacent property owners. Doyle Daniel, of 412 Springwood Drive, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed restaurant. Mr. Daniel stated that the outdoor seating, lights and noise associated with the business would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Daniel stated that the property is zoned C-1 and is to be used as neighborhood commercial. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle to give details on the restaurant's operation. Mr. Buerkle responded that the restaurant was a family-oriented business. He further stated that the restaurant was nonsmoking and nonalcoholic and had no drive-thru. Mr. Buerkle continued by giving greater detail on the proposed lighting and landscaping associated with the project. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle if the dumpster could be relocated from the rear portion of the property. Andrew Hicks responded that the dumpster is located to the rear of the property as the ordinance requires. Mr. Hicks stated that the dumpster would be enclosed and pointed out that there is an additional opaque screen along the east side of the property, on top of the slope, which would provide maximum screening. Commissioner Walker asked if a masonry wall could be put in place of the opaque fence along the east side. Mr. Hicks responded that a masonry wall could be used in that location. He stated that the applicant will work with staff and neighborhood residents to design the most effective screening. Additionally, Mr. Hicks stated that the lighting on the property would be low-level, 12 feet high, and would have minimal impact on adjacent properties. Ken Davis again addressed the Commission and stated that the neighborhood is still opposed to this use. Mr. Davis stated that the neighborhood residents were not here to discuss various aspects of the proposal. Maury Mitchell then addressed the Commission in favor of the application. 4 March 22,, 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5524-B Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, then spoke to the Commission. He stated that this property should be used as an office use. Mr. Lawson stated that the property was zoned C-1 for a comic bookstore but that proposal did not develop. Mr. Lawson stated that this narrow strip on the east side of Bowman Road should be used by low intensity uses, not intense C-3 type uses. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, then addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed restaurant. She stated that she had concerns about the restaurant's impact on the traffic on Bowman Road. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, responded to Ms. Bell's concern. He stated that Bowman Road is, at this point, a five lane arterial with left turn lanes. Mr. Henry stated that traffic should not be a problem. (Note to file: prior to the commission meeting, Mr. Henry informed the Planning Staff that all improvements were in place on Bowman Road and that no further right-of-way dedication was required in association with this application.) Mark Buerkle then closed his presentation to the Commission by stating that the proposed restaurant is a family-oriented restaurant and will be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Willis then made a motion to vote on the application. The vote was 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. The item was automatically deferred to the March 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that there was no new information to report. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Mark Buerkle, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Buerkle addressed the Commission and asked that the item be deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that an April 18, 1994 meeting had been arranged with the residents of the Birchwood Subdivision in hopes of resolving some outstanding neighborhood concerns. A March 22., 1994 ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5524-B The Commission asked Mr. Doyle Daniel, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, if he was agreeable to the deferral. Mr. Daniels stated that the neighborhood was still opposed to the restaurant but was agreeable to the deferral to allow the meeting on April 18. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). 6 'March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1008 AME: CAMP ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of Robinwood Drive, north and east of the Hillandale Drive intersection DEVELOPER: MARCIA C. CAMP 75 Robinwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72207 225-8619 ARE 10.54 ACRES for Lot 1, plus 0.46 ACRES for Lot 2, plus 0.14 ACRES for the separate access easement ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 ENGINEER• JOE WHITE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which requires that every lot abut upon a public street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the creation of a site on which to build a new home. The preliminary plat encompasses a 10.54 acre tract as Lot 1 and the re -plating of Lot 68 in Robinwood Subdivision as Lot 2 of the new subdivision. The 10.54 acre tract is landlocked, with no frontage on a public street and with no common property line with Lot 2. To provide access to the site, the applicant proposes to provide a private drive in a 20 foot wide by 450 foot long access easement across two properties. The applicant proposes: 1) to re -plat Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, on which her current residence is situated, and which has frontage on a public street, as Lot 2 of the new subdivision to separate off a 20 foot wide by the 150 foot depth of the lot for a portion of the access easement; and 2) on property to the north which is contiguous to both her current residential lot and to her proposed building site, and in which the applicant also owns an interest, to separate off the remainder of the needed access easement, a 20 foot wide by 300 'March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 foot long, 0.14 acre, strip of land. This access easement is also proposed to be a utility easement for access of utilities to the building site. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat which entails creation of a two -lot subdivision with access to be provided to the newly created building site by way of a private drive in an access easement. The applicant proposes to construct a new home on a 10.54 acres tract, and proposes to provide the needed access by re -platting the lot on which her current residence is located, and which has frontage on a public street, and dedicating a portion of the needed easement across this lot; and, by designating the remainder of the needed access on abutting land in which the applicant has an undivided interest, but across which she has been granted an access easement. Utility access is also proposed to be gained by way of the easement. The applicant requests approval from the Board of Directors of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations which restricts the creation of lots which do not have minimum frontage on a public street or, where expressly approved by the Planning Commission, a private street, and thus allow her to gain access to her lot by way of an access easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed building site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. This site lies north of the Robinwood Subdivision and has no frontage on a public or private street. The applicant's current residence, Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, has 135 feet of frontage on Robinwood Drive. There is no common property line lying between Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision and the 10.54 acre proposed building site. The current zoning of the tract is R-2, Single Family Residential. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office has no comments. Water Works indicates that a water main extension and possibly a private fire hydrant will be required. At the minimum, a 3" water main extension will be required to be provided by the developer. If the Fire Department requires a fire hydrant, then the water line extension will have to be an 8" line. 2 'March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main is located on the property; however, easements must be provided. The applicant needs to contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot utility easement around the perimeter of the newly created lot, and notes that the easement at the rear of Lot 68, the applicants current residential lot, is a 10 foot easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement at the perimeter of the new lot. The Fire Department comments that a fire hydrant must be located on the 10.54 acre tract. A 20 foot wide all weather drive will be required, and sufficient turning radius will be required so that a fire truck can have access to the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations requires: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved the planning commission." (Section 31-207 of the Regulations explains: "Private streets...shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved ... to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards....") The applicant reports that, on the tract in which she has an interest and which abuts both her current and her proposed homesites, she has a deed for an access easement which connects the two sites. If the Commission approves the creation of the land -locked subdivision, and the Board of Directors approves the waiver of the Regulations, the applicant will need to furnish proof of the easement. A survey of the existing home site, Lot 68, will need to be provided in order to determine if proper access can be gained by way of the proposed access easement. With the Fire Department requiring a 20 foot drive and the proposed access easement being 20 feet wide, an adjustment in the width of the proposed easement may be made necessary. The information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat needs to be completed; e.g., the physical description of all monuments is to be furnished; 3 'March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 the proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown; the Surveying and Engineering Certifications are to be executed; a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted; etc. E. ANALYSIS: The deficiencies in information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat are minimal, and can be easily remedied. The problem with the submission is the question of access. The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit the creation of subdivisions and lots which do not have proper access. Access is defined as have minimum frontage on a street, and the street which is provided is to meet the requirements of the Regulations. A private drive crossing two other tracts in an access easement is far removed from the standard which is provided in the Regulations. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request to create the landlocked lot and denial of the request for the waiver from the Subdivision Regulations. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Staff presented the proposal. Mr. Joe White, the engineer for the project and Mrs. Marcia Camp, the applicant, were present. The discussion outline was reviewed with the applicant and her engineer. The discussion centered around the fact that the proposed lot has no frontage on a street, and that access is proposed to be provided by way of an access easement. The applicant explained that she owns Lot 68 which fronts on Robinwood Drive, and will re -plat that lot to dedicate a portion of the needed access easement; and, that she holds an undivided interest in the property to the north of Lot 68 which also abuts her proposed building site, and that she has a deed for an access easement crossing that site to provide the remainder of the needed access. Staff indicated that, in lieu of the access easement, a "pipestem" lot might provide a better alternative. The lot would then have frontage on a street. Creation of a pipestem lot would necessitate a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations, since pipestem lots are also prohibited. Since the property to the north of the applicant's current residence and in which she has an undivided interest would also have to be subdivided to extract a portion of the pipestem, either the owners of that property would have to undertake subdivision of that property or a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations from that requirement would also have to be pursued. Staff indicated 4 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1008 that staff could not support creation of the subdivision as it is currently proposed. Mrs. Camp then related that she does, indeed, have title to the portion of the land which is designated to be an access easement, so creation of a pipestem lot could be undertaken. Staff responded that such a sale whereby the 20 foot by 300 foot parcel is sold off of the larger tract constitutes a subdivision and would be an illegal subdivision of the land. Mr. White indicated that he would review the deed and make changes in the design to delineate a pipestem lot, and he would provide the additional information noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the request and indicated that the recommendation from staff was for denial. Staff explained that the tract is land -locked, and that access is proposed by way of access easements across two other properties; that the access easements are proposed to be 20 feet in width; that the fire department has commented that there will be a requirement for a 20 foot wide drive for proper fire department equipment access; and, that, staff continued, a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot easement provided inadequate space for a shoulder. Marcia Camp, the applicant, related that she had been told by the Neighborhoods and Planning staff that pipe stem lots formed with easements are often used to provide access to land locked lots, for instance in the Heights, to access property which are nice lots, but do not have frontage on a street. Therefore, she continued, she bought the land -locked parcel behind her home. She explained that the pipe -stem would be formed, in part, from land in which she has a one-fourth interest, and, in part , from land which she owns; therefore, she commented, it is quite simple to get access to the site. She said that she had gone through all the steps necessary to provide the access easement. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if she would like a deferral to allow her to do further investigation on the remaining questions and problems mentioned by staff. Mrs. Camp responded that she would ask for a deferral. Joe White, representing the project engineer, interjected that pipe -stem lots are routinely used to provide access to otherwise land -locked lots; however, he agreed that a deferral would be appropriate. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the matter until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 'March 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 2 FILE NO.: S-1009 NAME: CHENAL BUSINESS ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and West Markham Street, west to Atkins Road and to Timber Ridge Addition on the south DEVELOPER: ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE LITTLE ROCK C/o Dickson Flake 1200 First Commercial P. 0. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-6161 AREA: 16.74 ACRES ZONING• C-2 & 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 ENGINEER• OF ROBERT BROWN DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 Building Little Rock, AR 72205 221-72205 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial & Office VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Master Street Plan requirement which will require the dedication of additional right-of-way on Chenal Parkway and construction of an additional traffic lane along the Chenal Parkway frontage. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a 16.74 acre site bounded on the east by Chenal Parkway, on the north by West Markham Street, on the west by Atkins Road, and on the south by the Timber Ridge Addition. For the present, one lot and one tract are designated. The lot, the north 3.31 acres, is proposed for immediate development, and an application for a PCD for Dick Layton Buick is filed to be heard as an additional item on the agenda. The remaining 13.43 acres is designated as a tract which is reserved for future development. Besides the PCD application to be heard, the applicant has filed an application to re -zone a portion of the tract, and the re -zoning request is also to be heard on the agenda. No interior streets are proposed. Improvements required by the Master Street Plan are proposed to be accomplished along West Markham Street and on Atkins Road, as is the construction of the required sidewalk along Chenal Parkway. However, no additional right-of-way and no construction of an additional traffic lane is proposed for Chenal Parkway. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1009 A. PROPOSAL/REOUBST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat involving a 16.74 acre tract for a commercial subdivision. The proposal involves the designation of one 3.31 acre lot for immediate development and the leaving of the remaining 13.43 acres as a tract for future development. For the present, then, no internal streets are proposed. Improvements required by the Master Street Plan are anticipated to be provided along West Markham Street and along Atkins Road, as is a sidewalk along Chenal Parkway. A waiver from the Master Street Plan requirements for dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of an additional traffic lane along the Chenal Parkway frontage is requested to be granted by the Board of Directors. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The site has about a 70 foot difference in topography across it, with the low points being along the north property line. The existing zoning of the Lot 1 area is C-2. The C-2 zoning district extends southward to approximately mid -way in the site. The remainder of the site is zoned 0-3. Property to the north and east is zoned C-3; to the west and south is zoned 0-3. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of an additional 10 feet of right-of-way, construction of an additional traffic lane, and construction of a sidewalk on Chenal Parkway. On West Markham Street and on Atkins Road, sidewalks will have to be constructed. PAGIS monuments will be required. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that the water main in West Markham Street is a 20 inch main. Domestic service is not allowed off of this main. A water main extension and possibly on- site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that the sanitary sewer easement must match the location of the existing 10 inch sewer main shown on the plat. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement at the perimeter of the platted area as well as along the proposed lot line of Lot 1. E March 22„ 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1009 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement along the south lot line of lot 1. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are minor deficiencies in the preliminary plat as submitted: the acreage to remain for future development needs to be designated as a tract; the acreage of the lot and tract must be shown; show the proposed building lines on the plat; complete the information on abutting property ownerships; show the zoning of the site and of abutting properties. Remaining to be executed are the Owner, Engineering, and Surveying Certification. Items which will be required are the location of the PAGIS monuments, etc. E. ANALYSIS: The deficiencies noted can be easily remedied. There are no insurmountable problems with the submittal or with the design of the plat. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and the planning staff recommends approval of the waiver. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Dickson Flake, representing the owner, and Mr. Robert Brown, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the proposal, and Mr. Brown reviewed the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Flake responded to the City Engineering comment regarding the Master Street Plan requirements for dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of the additional lane on Chenal Parkway, indicating that the owner was pursuing a clarification of the requirements to the Board of Directors. Staff reported that, by the time the waiver would normally be heard by the Board, the Board may have reached a decision on an amendment of the Master Street Plan which would make a waiver unnecessary. The Committee confirmed with Mr. Brown that there were no questions regarding the item listed in the discussion outline, then referred the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 3 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1009 Mr. Dickson Flake, representing the owner, and Mr. Robert Brown, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the proposal, and Mr. Brown reviewed the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Flake responded to the City Engineering comment regarding the Master Street Plan requirements for dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of the additional lane on Chenal Parkway, indicating that the owner was pursuing a clarification of the requirements to the Board of Directors. Staff reported that, by the time the waiver would normally be heard by the Board, the Board may have reached a decision on an amendment of the Master Street Plan which would make a waiver unnecessary. The Committee confirmed with Mr. Brown that there were no questions regarding the item listed in the discussion outline, then referred the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Chairperson Chachere explained that Item 2 (Chenal Business Addition Preliminary Plat), Item 16 (Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD), and Item 25 (the rezoning of a portion of the proposed Chenal Business Addition from 0-3 to C-2) would be discussed together, but then would be voted on individually. Staff presented the various requests and reported that Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, had delivered a statement to staff outlining the League's concerns which she feels need to be addressed, and staff reported that a copy of the statement from Ms. Bell was at each Commissioners desk. David Jones, with Vogle Realty, introduced himself, and indicated that he was representing the interests of Dick Layton Buick in the hearing. He related that Dick Layton Buick had tried to make sure that the development was as sensitive as possible to the neighborhoods in the area; that, therefore, the deed restrictions imposed on the sale of the property will contain provisions which will prohibit: an adult book or adult video store; a night club or place of recreation or amusement; a car wash, except as an incidental use associated with the auto dealership; and, any business serving alcoholic beverages, except as an incidental use to a restaurant use. He explained that he and others involved in the project had met with the neighbors, that 12-15 had showed up and the meeting had lasted about 2 hours; and, that, as a result, the developer was prepared to make the following concessions: there would be no body shop constructed as part of the development; there would be no outdoor paging of employees; there would be no off-site parking of vehicles; there would be no off-street loading of vehicles being delivered; there would be no 4 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: S-1 circus tents, flashing lights, search lights, pendents, or carnival -type promotions; test drive routs will be defined and will not run through the Timber Ridge neighborhood, and customers will be accompanied by sales representatives during test drives; and, site lighting will be directional and controlled to light only the site, and site lighting will be reduced after hours by two-thirds. Mr. Jones concluded with the statement that Dick Layton, at the meeting with neighbors, had committed to assist the Timber Ridge and Point West neighborhoods in the development of a neighborhood park. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, the project engineer, presented the development scheme to the Commission. He reviewed with Commissioners the site plan, landscaping plan, the location of the various proposed activities, and the rendering showing the view of the project from the front. Mr. Jones added that the Dick Layton Buick and the rezoning issues are contractually interrelated, and one cannot proceed without the other. Dick Layton promised that he would not return to the Commission at a late time with requests for tents or banners. He reiterated that there would be no outside paging, and that the alarm system is a silent alarm, not an audible alarm. He explained that the University Ave. location will be retained and will be used for a storage lot for overflow vehicle storage from the new lot. Dickson Flake, representing the Catholic Diocese, explained that the Diocese had concerns in concluding the sale to Dick Layton Buick that the remaining C-2 land available could not be developed; that the remaining tract of C-2 land was too narrow and development would be difficult. The 0-3 area, on the other hand, was a large area. There was a need, then, to increase the C-2 area for development of that area to be workable. The change of a portion of the 0-3 area to C-2 would leave a 5 acre tract zoned 0-3, and would be 200 feet in depth along the Timber Ridge neighborhood. The advantage of the change to the Diocese would be that there would be adequate C-2 area to be marketable. The advantage to the neighborhood would be that the 0-3 area would be too small for a high rise development, necessitating a smaller office development scheme of no more than two -store office buildings. This would provide a good buffer along the neighborhood's boundary. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Flake if the Diocese would commit to that restriction of no more than two story office buildings. Mr. Flake responded that the Diocese would make that commitment. Mary Douglas introduced herself as a representative of the Timber Ridge, Gibralter Heights, and Point West subdivisions, and indicated that she had a prepared statement to read, which she 5 March 22,, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1 then read. She related that she also had a map which shows the intensity of the commercial development in the area of the three neighborhoods, and explained that there was too much development making it too congested; that the area would not be a pleasant place to live in the future is development continued. She then asked that the item be deferred to give the neighborhood time to do further study on the effects of the proposed development on the neighborhoods. Mr. Jones responded that the site is already composed of 8 acres of C-2 land which would allow a major development to be constructed without rezoning. In such a case, traffic would be a great deal greater than it would with the current proposal. Dick Layton Buick would generate 60-70 vehicles per day; therefor, on 3 acres of the tract, traffic would be substantially decreased from what might be expected from C-2 zoned land. He said that the developer had met all requirements to notify the neighbors and to meet with them, and the developer does not want to delay the matter. The developer does not want another consultant brought in by the neighborhood "second-guessing" the design and choices already made. Commissioner Putnam, addressing Ms. Douglas, related that the area is currently zoned C-2, and there are about 100 uses that could go into the area without review or the property owners being notified or consulted. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles advised the applicant and neighbors that there is approximately a month between the Commission hearing and the Board of Directors meeting, and that during this interim, further discussion could take place. Mr. Jones related that, if the item were recommended for approval, that, indeed, further discussion could continue, and that a meeting with the neighborhood and their consultant, George Wittenberg, could be held. Ms. Douglas indicted that she felt that there were questions remaining which needed clarification. Commissioner Nicholson responded that all the issues had been resolved and "signed -off" on by staff. Ms. Nicholson, addressing Ms. Douglas, said that the neighborhood was not sure that they were for or against the development, and that she would not support a request by the neighborhood for a deferral without specific reasons. She advised Ms. Douglas to meet with Mr. Wittenberg and develop specific requests which might be points of discussion with the developer, then to bring these to the developer for a response. Any further concessions or agreements could be addressed at the Board of Directors meeting. Ms. Nicholson then asked Ms. Douglas for a clarification as to who the letter which Ms. Douglas had read was from. 21 March 22„ 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-1009 Ms. Douglas explained that there was no neighborhood association; that the letter was from the group of residents who had been meeting and discussing the situation. Christi Phelps addressed the Commission. She said that the neighborhood has a good "confidence level" regarding the Dick Layton Buick proposal, but that they do not have a good "confidence level" regarding the rezoning issue. Relating to the rezoning issue, the neighborhood requests: a 150 foot deep open space strip abutting the Timber Ridge neighborhood; that there be permitted no access to Atkins Rd.; that a study be conducted to determine the effect of the change in zoning on the surrounding neighborhoods; and, a requirement be imposed which will provide for site plan review on any development in the rezoned area. Relating to the Dick Layton Buick, Ms. Phelps continued: that there be no access to Atkins Rd.; that there be no pole signs allowed; that parking for employees be restricted to on-site; that there be no unloading of the transport trucks from Atkins Rd., W. Markham St., or Chenal Parkway; that the alarm system be a silent alarm; that the dumpster be in an enclosure and that servicing be restricted to weekdays only and only after 8:30 A.M.; that there be no test driving allowed on Atkins Rd. or in the surrounding neighborhoods; that the dealership be closed on Sundays; that there be no promotional activities allowed; that there be no expansion of the dealership allowed onto adjacent property; that if the dealership were vacated, that notification and review by the neighborhoods be required; that lighting be controlled and directional; and that landscaping be with evergreen trees and scrubs. Mr. Layton responded that, in the years he had been in business, he had never been open on Sundays, but that he could not commit to such a restriction. Mr. Jones responded that most of the items had already been agreed to; others could not be agreed to, such as the restriction on the expansion of the dealership. Robert Brown discussed the location of the proposed signs, saying that the one sign along Chenal Parkway would conform to the "Design Overlay District" requirements, but that the sign which lies 300 feet to the west of Chenal Parkway on W. Markham St. would be a standard commercial sign. He explained that since the sign is over 300 feet from Chenal Parkway, that it was not proposed to conform to the "DOD" restrictions. Mr. Jones, returning to the discussion of the proposed rezoning, added that the request is for C-2 zoning, and that site plan review is required; therefore, the neighbors would have a chance to participate in site plan review hearings when the development continues. 7 March 22,, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1009 Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Flake to comment further on the interrelatedness of the proposals. Mr. Flake explained that the approval of one request without the other would not permit the Dick Layton Buick proposal to continue. The Diocese could not conclude the sale without assurance that the remaining tract is marketable. Mr. Flake, continuing, said that, as well as restricting the development in the 0-3 area to 2 floors in height, he would also make the concession to provide for site plan review of the development within the 0-3 area. Art Kelly, saying that he was a resident of the Timber Ridge neighborhood, indicated that he supported the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #2, the preliminary plat for Chenal Business Addition. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #16, the Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #25, the rezoning of a portion of the tact from 0-3 to C-2. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 8 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1010 AME: APPLE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 100 feet south of Frazier Pike Ave., approximately 0.2 miles east of Stout Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• JESSIE DOYNE, PRESIDENT PAT MCGETRICK COLLEGE STATION COMMUNITY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 P. O. Box 626 Little Rock, AR 72211 College Station, AR 72053 223-9900 AREA: 1.48 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 200 ZONING: AF PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 5 -lot residential subdivision on a 1.5 acre tract involving the construction of 200 feet of new street. The north boundary of the subdivision is 97 feet south of the centerline of Frazier Pike Ave., and the preliminary plat which has been submitted indicates a 60 foot wide right-of-way connecting Frazier Pike Ave. with the site and extending southward alongside the east boundary of the site. However, this right-of-way is apparently not dedicated, and the applicant proposes no roadway construction to tie the tract to Frazier Pike Ave. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of a preliminary plat is requested of the Planning Commission for the subdivision of a 1.5 acre tract to provide 5 residential lots which are proposed to have frontage on a 200 foot long internal street. The center line of the internal street is 223.5 feet south of the centerline of Frazier Pike Ave., and a 60 foot wide right- of-way is shown extending south from Frazier Pike Ave. to the site and lying along the east boundary of the site. This right-of-way is not a platted right-of-way. The applicant proposes no roadway construction off site to connect the proposed development with Frazier Pike Ave. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1010 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The area designated on the plat as a 60 foot right-of-way extending southward from Frazier Pike Ave. has been cleared at one time and is overgrown in weeds and brush. The site is level. The existing zoning of the site is A -F, with A -F zoning on all the surrounding land except for an R-2 area to the north of the tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering notes that the internal road designated Apple Blossom Lane must be constructed to meet Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant is to comply with Sec. 31-401 of the Code regarding installation of street lighting. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. Apple Drive is apparently not a dedicated right-of-way and lies on private property. An acreage charge in addition to the normal charges will be applied. Wastewater notes that a sewer main extension with easements will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The site of the proposed subdivision is apparently land -locked. It does not have access to Frazier Pike Ave. along the Apple Drive right-of-way shown, since that right-of-way does not exist; it has apparently never been platted or dedicated. For access to the site, right-of-way will have to be acquired and Apple Drive will have to be constructed to Master Street Plan standards. Since the information indicated on the plan is incorrect which shows the right-of-way, this incorrect information must be deleted from the plan. It is reported that the applicant has additional land which is contiguous to the proposed platted area. If this is the case, this additional land needs to be included in the preliminary plat and can, if necessary, be shown as a tract for future development. 2 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1010 The plat as submitted has minor deficiencies: the owner, surveying, and engineering certifications must be executed; the ownership and deed information on abutting properties need to be shown; and, the zoning classifications of the site and of abutting properties need to be shown. Additional requirements are: the PAGIS monuments must be denoted and set; a Bill of Assurance must be submitted; etc. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed plat has a fatal flaw in that it is land -locked and no provision has been made to provide access to the site. The plat cannot be approved in its current form or status. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends either denial of the request, or, if the applicant feels that a deferral would allow time to remedy the deficiencies, then staff will concur with such a request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the request and the discussion centered on the apparent fact that the proposed subdivision is land -locked; that the 60 foot right-of-way shown on the drawing to connect Frazier Pike Ave. with the site has never been dedicated. There was also discussion about the applicant proposing no street construction to connect the site with Frazier Pike Ave. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant was going to attempt to get assistance from the City to construct the off-site street improvements. Since the subdivision cannot be approved without resolution of the access problem, there was very little other discussion. The Committee indicated that the applicant needs to defer pursuing approval of the preliminary plat until the access problem is resolved and a determination is made on the construction of Apple Lane. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the City has been in contact with the applicant regarding funding for off-site and on-site street improvements, and that, in order for the City and the applicant to pursue options available for funding, the City has suggested and the applicant has agreed to request a deferral until the 3 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-101 June 4, 1994 Commission hearing. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. Staff reported that the Commission Bylaws require written notification of a request for a deferral to be submitted at least five (5) days prior to the Commission hearing date. In this case, the agreement to seek a deferral was by mutual agreement between the City and the applicant, and no written request was made. Consequently, a waiver of the Bylaws requirement needs to be approved by the Commission. The waiver was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 4 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1011 NAME: MARY KAY ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Between Brixie Road and Sullivan Road, approximately 0.1 mile north of Raines Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• MARION AND MARY KAY YOUNG JOE WHITE #6 Holly Hill Road WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Little Rock, AR 72204 401 S. Victory Street 664-1674 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 2.86 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which will require construction of one-half of the width of boundary street which have frontage on the subdivision 2. Waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which prohibits creating subdivision lots with double frontages on parallel residential or collector streets. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat in order to subdivide a 2.86 acre tract into three single-family lots. The tract currently has County -maintained public roadways along its east and west boundaries. The right-of-way for the boundary roadway on the east is dedicated; on the west, the right-of-way is not dedicated, and the applicant proposes to dedicate one-half of a 50 foot right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a 3 -lot residential subdivision on a 2.86 acre site. There are currently County roads which bound the tract on two opposing sides. The roadway along the east frontage of the property is a County -maintained road in a dedicated right-of-way. The road along the west ' March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1011 frontage of the site is a County -maintained road, but the right-of-way is not dedicated. The applicant proposes to dedicate the needed right-of-way to the center of the road, or one-half of a 50 foot right-of-way. The applicant will request a waiver from the Board of Directors of having to provide Master Street Plan improvements for both of the roads, and will seek a waiver from the prohibition in the Subdivision Regulations against double frontage lots where two parallel residential or collector streets are involved. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is outside the City Limits of Little Rock, but in the Planning Boundary of the City. The site is undeveloped and wooded; the land rises approximately 20 feet from west to east. Brixie Road, a County -maintained roadway, borders the tract along the east frontage of the tract, and the right-of-way for the road is dedicated. Parallel to Brixie Road, and lying along the west frontage of the tract, is Sullivan Road On this latter road, the right-of-way has not been dedicated. The current zoning of the site, and of all the surrounding land is R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering indicates that the Master Street Plan will require dedication of right-of-way and construction of street improvements on Sullivan Road and Brixie Road Sidewalks will be required along both frontages. The applicant will be required to comply with Section 31-401 of the Code of Ordinances regarding the installation of street lighting. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances will be required. Water Works reports that an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies, and that this is in addition to the normal connection fee. Execution of a pre -annexation agreement and approval of the City will be required in order to obtain water service. Wastewater indicates that the area is outside their service boundary. Arkansas Power & Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. E ' March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1011 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-231(d) of the Subdivision Regulations, it states: "Double frontage lots are prohibited. However, where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or proposed arterial street, freeway, expressway, or railroad right-of-way, reverse frontage lots are permitted. Double frontage lots may also be used to facilitate residential development in hillside areas...." The two boundary streets affecting the proposed development are residential or collector streets, therefore, a double -frontage lot situation is not permitted. A waiver from the requirement is required to be considered by the Board of Directors. A septic system is indicated in the application to be the planned means of sewage disposal. The applicant needs to furnish the State Health Department permit. The plat, as submitted, has minimal deficiencies: minimum front building setback lines are to be shown; the description of monuments is to be provided; the zoning classification of the site and of abutting properties are to be shown; the minimum and average lot sizes are to be shown. The submittals must include a Bill of Assurance. PAGIS monuments must be set. The owner, surveyor, and engineering certifications must be executed. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed subdivision is in an area which, at one time, was -proposed to be subdivided. Old maps indicate a grid - type subdivision containing the area outlined in the current application. The streets were shown as part of this old proposed development were built without a final plat being filed. With the streets which lie parallel to one another and which bound the site of the proposed subdivision being in place, and with only 193 feet between the parallel streets making other design options limited, dividing the property as has been submitted is probably the most logical choice to make. The deficiencies notes in the plans and in the submittals are minimal and can easily be completed or submitted by the applicant's engineer. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and the planning staff recommends approval of the waivers. 3 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-1011 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicants, Marion and Mary Kay Young, were present. The representative of their engineering firm, Joe White, was present. Staff outlined the proposed development and the Committee reviewed the prepared discussion outline with Mr. white. The applicants and Mr. white pointed out that the proposed development is outside the City Limits, but is in the City's Planning District, and they pointed out that both boundary streets are maintained by the County. Mr. white explained that the applicants would be seeking a waiver from the City Board of Directors for the street improvements. Mr. white indicated that he would see that the deficiencies noted were remedied. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and of the waivers of street improvements and for double -frontage lots, subject to the State Health Department approval of private septic systems for the three lots. The request was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 4 IMardh 22# 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: 5-1012 AME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Rodney Parham Road & I-630, east to Hughes Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• NOLAN PROPERTIES AND PAT MCGETRICK FREEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING c/o 620 W. 3rd. St. 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211 374-5417 223-9900 AREA: 18.17 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 1,600 ZONING: C-3 & R-5* (*The R-5 area is shown on the zoning map as a PCD; however, the time limit for implementation of the PCD has expired and the classification has lapsed.) PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: Commercial 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way. 2. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk on both side of a commercial street to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. 3. Variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 9 -lot commercial subdivision on an 18.17 acre site. The property is an "L" shaped tract, bounded on the north by I-630; on the south by the Haven of Rest Cemetery and March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1012 West 12th Street; on the east by Hughes Street; and on the west by Rodney Parham and an I-630 access ramp. Access is proposed to be gained from Rodney Parham; no access is proposed from Hughes Street The roadway is proposed to be 1700 feet long and form a cul-de-sac at its eastern termination. The applicant proposes a standard width commercial street section of 36 feet, but proposes a right-of-way width of 50 feet in lieu of the standard 60 feet. Also, the applicant proposes to construct a sidewalk on only one side of the street in lieu of on both sides as is required in a commercial subdivision. There are two entities who are owners of the tract which make up the area encompassed by the preliminary plat. One entity owns the property along the Rodney Parham/I-630 access ramp/W. 12th. Street frontages; another owns the property lying south of I-630, southward to the cemetery, and extending east to Hughes Street The latter owners anticipate the development of this portion of the property as a business park, and a PCD application is being heard as another item on the agenda. This latter owner also owns three lots that have frontage on Hughes Street, and which are platted as part of the residential subdivision along Hughes Street; however, the residential lots are not proposed to be included in the commercial subdivision. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision involving the platting of 9 lots on a 18.17 acre tract, and the construction of 1700 feet of new street. The proposed lots range in size from just over 1 acre to over 2.5 acres. Access to the property is proposed to be gained off Rodney Parham, with a cul-de-sac street extending eastward into the property. The integrity of the residential subdivision to the east along Hughes Street is proposed to be maintained by avoiding providing access to the site from Hughes Street and by proper buffering of the site from the residential area. Because of this site design decision which provides only the one access point, the cul-de-sac street exceeds the maximum length allowed for such streets. Consequently, a variance is requested from the Regulations which limit the maximum length of a cul-de-sac to 1000 feet and allow the 1700 foot long cul-de-sac. Because of the narrowness of the tract, squeezed in between I-630 on the north and the cemetery on the south, the applicant proposes a 50 foot right-of-way width in lieu of the 60 foot width which is required for a commercial street by the Regulations. Because the development is essentially along only one side of the proposed street, a sidewalk is proposed to be located on the north side of the street in lieu of on both sides of the street as is required by the Regulations. A waiver from the Regulations, then, is requested. E March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1012 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been mostly cleared. Some trees still stand on the site, mostly in the northeast portion of the tract. The topography rises from an elevation of 310 feet above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at the northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 80 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classifications to be C-3 and PCD. The property along Rodney Parham, eastward to the north -south property line of the Haven of Rest Cemetery is zoned C-3. The remainder of the site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps still show that designation, but since the proposed development was not constructed, and the time limit as specified in the Regulations has expired, the designation has lapsed and the PCD designation will be removed from the map. The property reverts to the former R-5 zoning classification. The property to the east, in the residential area along Hughes Street is zoned R-4. The property which includes I-630 on the north side of the tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes Street which forms the northeast boundary of the site is zoned R-2. The property to the south, which includes the cemetery, is zoned R-2. Across Rodney Parham to the west and across W. 12th. Street to the south is C-3 and I-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Subdivision Regulations will require construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street; will require dedication of a 60 foot wide right-of- way; and, will require construction of a 36 foot wide commercial street. Compliance with Section 31-401, Street Lighting Installation, will be required. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies, in addition to the normal charges. Wastewater reports that a sewer main is located on the property, but that it has never been accepted by Wastewater. A sewer main extension with easements will be required. The applicant can contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1012 Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the east, north, and west perimeter of the tract. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (a) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet." The Master Street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that the design standard of a collector street is the standard for a commercial street. That detail, as well as Section 31-209, Street Classification and Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations, specifies that the right-of-way for a collector (or commercial) street is to be 60 feet in width and have a street width of 36 feet. The deficiencies in the submittals include: the names and ownership citations for abutting properties must be included; the zoning classifications of the site and of the abutting properties must be indicated; the owner, surveying, and engineering certifications must be executed; the proposed location of PAGIS monuments must be indicated; and, a preliminary Bill of Assurance is required to be submitted. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in the submittals are minor and can be easily remedied. They do not present a problem which should cause concern or delay approval; the engineer can submit the needed information and documentation without difficulty. The requested waivers or the variance are not unreasonable, and the applicant has presented justification for these. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and the Planning staff recommends approval of the two waivers and one variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present, as was David Simmons, an architect representing the developer. Staff presented the proposed development. The Committee members reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and Mr. Simmons the deficiencies and 4 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1012 comments noted in the discussion outline. Misters McGetrick and Simmons presented the rationale for the design decisions which were made in the development of the plan and indicated that, due to the limitations imposed by the narrowness of the site and the desire to protect the residential neighborhood to the east, the proposed design involving the 1700 foot long cul-de-sac was felt to be the most appropriate. They also discussed their need for a 50 foot right-of-way in lieu of the required 60 foot right-of-way and their rationale for constructing a sidewalk on one side of the street as opposed to constructing it on two sides as required by the Regulations. Following this discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that there are no unresolved issues, and recommended approval of the preliminary plat and of the various waivers for right-of-way width, for a sidewalk on one side of the commercial street only, and for the length of the cul-de-sac. The request was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions. 5 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1013 NAME: BIG "K" SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Road, beyond the present west end of Labette Drive & approximately 300 feet south of Labette Drive. DEVELOPER: KELTON BROWN, SR. 13700 Bechenham Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-2111 ENGINEER• ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS INCORPORATED 200 Casey Dr. Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8806 AREA: 6.147 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 250 ZONING: Lots 2 & 3: MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Commercial Lot 1: 0-3 & MF -12 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a commercial subdivision on a 6.14 acre tract. A 250 foot section of Labette Drive is proposed to be constructed, extending the street westward from its present termination to the edge of the proposed development. The applicant proposes to seek a rezoning of the lot north of Labette Drive from its present MF -12 to an office zoning classification. For the area south of Labette Drive and for the portion of the tract abutting John Barrow Road, a separate application for a PCD classification is requested. This application is to be reviewed as another item on the agenda and would change the zoning classification from MF -12 and 0-3 to PCD. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision involving the creation of 3 lots and the construction of an extension of Labette Drive Two of the proposed lots will have frontage on Labette Drive; the third, on John Barrow Road The lot on the north side of the Labette Drive extension is in an area which is currently zoned MF -12; however the applicant proposes to seek an office classification at a later March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. : 6 (Continued) FILE NO. : S-1013 hearing. The lot fronting on Labette Drive but lying on the south side of the extension, coupled with the lot to the south which has its frontage on John Barrow Road, is to be considered for a PCD designation as another item on the agenda. No improvements are anticipated on John Barrow Road No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is wooded. A creek traverses the site from north to south. The current zoning is MF-12 and 0-3 . Undeveloped MF-12 land abuts the property to the west. Developed R-5 property abuts the proposed subdivision to the north. Undeveloped R-2 property lies to the south. Across John Barrow Road to the east is undeveloped 0-1 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering notes that the developer is required to construct a 36 foot wide road and dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for Labette Drive The centerline for Labette Drive extending westward for a future tie-in to Labette Drive extending eastward from Morris Manor Drive is to be provided to Engineering. Engineering will need to determine that the proposed curve within the boundary of the proposed platted area will meet the future extension in a manner which will meet Regulations. A temporary cul-de-sac or hammer-head turn-around will be required at the end of Labette Drive The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. water Works reports that a pro-rata front footage charge of $15. 00 per foot for water connections off of the main in Labette Drive will be applicable. Wastewater Utility will require a sewer main extension with easements. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. & Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment . D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant has failed to complete the application process: an application form has not been completed showing the name, address, and phone number of the developer and engineer; the needed information on the length of street to be constructed, etc. has not been completed. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1013 The engineer has failed to provide the physical description of the monuments or to designate proposed PAGIS monuments. The surveying accuracy certification does not indicate that the survey has been filed for record in the office of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorded within the last seven years. A preliminary Bill of Assurance has not been submitted. There is a need for the project engineer to present information on the proposed means of dealing with the creek which flows across the site. Is it to be relocated, put under ground, or simply channelized? Engineering's request for submission of a design for the future extension of Labette Drive westward towards Morris Manor Drive has been partially met; however, the proposed design does not meet the requirements. The project engineer needs to contact the City Engineering division and coordinate the requirements with that division. E. ANALYSIS• Overall the deficiencies in the submittal are minor and can be easily remedied. It is not anticipated that the curve within the subdivision for Labette Drive cannot be accommodated in the design for the Labette Drive extension to the west. Neither the applicant nor the project engineer have presented their proposal to the Subdivision Committee, so the Committee has not had an opportunity to question them or to satisfy themselves that the applicant or his engineer will conform to the requirements or satisfy the deficiencies noted. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the application to the next subdivision agenda so that the applicant and his engineer can present their proposal to, and discuss the proposal with, the Subdivision Committee. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the deficiencies of the application which were noted in the discussion outline. The Committee members reviewed the submittal, but were unable to confer with the applicant nor the engineer. Consequently they passed the item to the Commission for consideration of an appropriate action to be taken in light of the absence of the applicant and engineer. 3 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO S-1013 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that neither the applicant nor his engineer had been present at the Subdivision Committee meeting, but that staff had forwarded the deficiencies to the project engineer. Staff reported that all deficiencies in the submittal were complete and the recommendation from the staff was for approval of the preliminary plat. Staff went on to say that Robert Holloway, the project engineer has reported to the Planning staff that all concerns of the City Engineering office had been resolved. Mr. Robert Holloway indicated that, indeed, Engineering's concerns had been addressed. One concern, that of Labette Drive's future alignment to the west outside the west boundary of the proposed subdivision, cannot be resolved by the applicant. He explained that because of the position of Labette Drive as it presently exists at its intersection with John Barrow Rd. and with Morris Manor Dr., any proposed alignment will fail to meet the Master Street Plan standards for the design of the connector linking the two ends. He related that the City Engineering office had indicated that a waiver from the Master Street Plan regulations would have to sought when that connector street was constructed. Jerry Gardner with the City Engineering office confirmed Mr. Holloway's statement that all concerns of the City Engineering office were addressed, and recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Chairperson Chachere confirmed that the staff recommendation was for approval, and that the recommendation contained in the agenda write-up for deferral had been superseded by the applicant having submitted the completed documents and gained the approval of the City Engineering office. Commissioner Willis sought clarification of the situation regarding a waiver for Labette Dr. which Mr. Holloway had mentioned. Staff responded that a waiver would have to be dealt with at some future time when the property to the west of the applicant's proposed development, which is owned by another part, is developed. There is no need for a waiver for the proposed layout of Labette Dr. within the boundary of the applicant's property. Chairperson Chachere asked the Commission if there was a motion on the request. A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat as presented. The motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO Z 4016 D AME: P&L INVESTMENT CO. -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of I-30 access road and Wanda Lane DEVELOPER: PERRY GRAVITT P&L INVESTMENT CO. 714 S. Ringo St. Little Rock, AR 72201 372-6596 AREA: 2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REO ESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: A PCD for the site was approved in Ordinance number 14,895, passed on June 4, 1985, after the Planning Commission recommended approval in a public hearing held on May 14, 1985. Included in the approval of the PCD was the requirement that the rear/north 7,800 square foot portion of the strip center be used for office uses. By letter from the owner, dated May 9, 1985, the owner volunteered that this rear 7,800 square feet be designated for general office uses under the 0-1, quiet office designation, and the limitation was approved by the Planning Commission as a requirement of the approved plan. (The remainder of the center to the south was approved for C-3 uses.) Over the years, non -0-1 uses have begun to occupy this rear 7,800 square foot portion -of the center, and zoning enforcement began enforcement action in the matter. The owner, consequently, has proposed that, in addition to the 0-1 uses which were previously approved, this rear 7,800 square foot area be allowed to have C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses. No other change in the originally approved PCD is proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amendment to an existing PCD to allow C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses in the March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO Z 4016 D B. C. D. rear/north portion of the existing strip center in addition to the previously approved 0-1, quiet office, uses. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing PCD is a strip shopping center with a mixture of C-3, C-1, and 0-1 uses. The rear 7,800 square feet is limited to 0-1, quiet office, uses, but, for instance, a book store is one of the tenants. Other non -0-1 uses are a cleaners pick-up station and a beauty -barber shop. In the past, it is reported that non -0-1 uses have included a video rental store. These are retail use, and are not permitted by right in the 0-1 district. The problem, though, as far as the neighbors are concerned, is a dance studio in the rear portion of the center. A dance studio is allowed by right in the 0-1 district, but the reported loud music, loitering, and alcohol consumption disturb the abutting residential neighbors. According to one neighbor, when the music starts, the dogs begin howling. The originally approved site plan shows the landscaping which was supposed to be installed. Practically all of the plantings are no longer in place. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering, Water Works, and Wastewater have no comments. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the landscaping which was proposed and required in the original PCD approval has deteriorated. Landscaping is required to be reinstalled and to be properly maintained. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Zoning Enforcement has undertaken enforcement action to bring the uses in compliance with the approved PCD requirements. The rear 7,800 square feet is limited to 0-1, quiet office, uses, but retail uses occupy or have occupied this area. The applicant is seeking to amend the approved PCD to permit C-1, neighborhood commercial, uses. When the uses change, the parking requirements also change. That there is sufficient parking to meet the Ordinance requiremtns needs to be confirmed. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Geyer Springs West Planning District, and the Plan recommends commercial uses. There is, in this request, no land use issue. 0a March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D E. ANALYSIS• The "Mystic Eye Book Store", which is not allowed in the 0-1 district does not appear to be a problem; a dance studio, which is allowed in the 0-1 district is, according to the neighbors, a nuisance. The minutes of the original May 14, 1985 Planning Commission suggest that "office" was the key word, and that "office" uses were the intended limitation. However, all uses by right in the 0-1 district were approved. It is, perhaps, more appropriate to limit the uses to those in the 0-1 and C-1 districts which are not offensive, and exclude uses such as a dance studio, video store, etc. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the change in the PCD to permit limited C-1 uses such as: antique shop; bank or savings and loan office; book and stationery store; barber and beauty shop; camera shop; cigar, tobacco, and candy store; clothing store; custom sewing and millinery; drugstore or pharmacy; duplication shop; florist shop; furniture store; handicraft, ceramic, sculpture, or similar art work; hobby shop; jewelry store; key shop; general and professional office; tailor; or travel bureau. Staff also recommends excluding non -office uses from those approved in the 0-1 zoning district, and limit the approved uses in the 0-1 district to general and professional office uses. There should be a restriction on commercial uses to limit those uses to available parking. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the proposal. Staff outlined the request and presented the items in the discussion outline. Since the deficiencies are minimal, and the request involves a change in the allowable uses, the Committee did not feel that the lack of attendance at the meeting was decisive. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item and briefly outlined the history of the request. The action establishing the PCD took place in 1985. At that time, C-3 uses were allowed in the front "leg" of the "L" -shaped building, and the rear portion of the "L" was restricted to 0-1 uses. The center has 18, 133 square feet of area, and the rear 7,800 square feet is limited to the 0-1 uses. 3 Mardh 22,, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D The area restricted to 0-1 uses contains a "Dance America" dance studio, a book store, a cleaners pick-up station, a beauty shop, and a family service agency. There are two vacant lease spaces. A dance studio and the family service agency are permitted uses in the 0-1 zoning district. The book store, a cleaners pick-up station, and a beauty shop are not; they are C-1 uses. The "Dance America" manager, Mr. Lewis Ridgel, confirmed to staff that his facility is exclusively a place for adult ballroom dancing instruction; therefore, the dance studio is an approved use in the 0-1 district so long as it conforms to the definition of a dance studio contained in the Ordinance. Staff recommended approval of the request to allow limited "quiet" C-1 uses in the rear 7,800 square feet as outlined in the staff recommendation. Staff also reported that, since the center has 18,133 square feet of floor area, and provides 49 parking spaces on site, if the center is approved for all commercial uses, then the parking regulations would require 58 parking spaces. Staff reported that the applicant maintains that there is sufficient parking for the activity generated by the businesses occupying the center, especially with the Dance America clients utilizing the center primarily after other businesses close. Barbara Bonds, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and reiterated that the applicant's purpose is to allow the C-1 uses which, over time, have crept into the Center to remain, and that the applicant could accept the staff recommendation that only specific C-1 uses, which would not be out of character with an office zone, be permitted. Mr. Donald Turney of 7605 Denise Dr. addressed the Commission. He introduced his next door neighbor, Mr. William Holley, of 7601 Denise. He presented to the Commission a petition containing approximately 46 names and representing 35 homes in the abutting neighborhood. He related that the neighborhood's concerns are the tranquillity and serenity of the neighborhood. This tranquillity and serenity is put at risk, and that since Dance America moved in, there has been a noticeable increase in the noise. If a dance studio is for the instruction of dance only, then, since Dance America is not limiting its activities to that it is not in compliance with the regulations; Dance America rents its space out for parties. Last Saturday night, Mr. Turney continued, there was still the "thump, thump, thump" of loud music coming from the Dance America studio at 3:00 in the morning. Mr. Turney related that he reported the conditions to the police, and the police were witnesses to a large number of people carousing in the parking lot, drinking, milling around, and getting "a snoot full". Drunk driver were seen leaving the center and going the wrong way on University Ave. Ever since University Center opened, there have been problems. There is a Pizza delivery business located in the front of the building, in the C-3 area, and they empty their dumpsters at 2:00 A.M. 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D Mr. Turney complained that the clanging of the equipment and dumpster, coupled with the beeping from the O.S.H.A.-required beeper are disturbing and wake him and the other neighbors. He and others in the neighborhood want to get piece and quiet back, and oppose allowing more commercial uses. He continued that the neighbors have no problem with business uses in the Center, but that Dance America is a problem; that 3:30 is too late to be instructing people how to dance. He charged that the Dance America business is being uses as a social club, and that the dance studio is a cover for other functions. Mr. Bonds responded that the dance studio should not be an issue, since a dance studio is permitted in the 0-1 zone. She added that the owners of the Center have no complaints on file from any neighbor; but, she suggested, that if a nuisance is being created, the owners of the Center can take care of such a problem; that there are conditions in the lease which can be enforced. Commissioner Oleson asked if zoning enforcement personnel could confirm whether Dance America was in compliance with the definition of a dance studio. Staff responded that enforcement officers could visit the location after hours to verify whether or not the Dance America conformed to the 0-1 use. Ms. Oleson asked how non -0-1 uses were allowed in the Center. Staff indicated that, over time, these uses have crept in; that, sometimes, the Collector's office does not verify with Zoning before issuing a privilege license or allowing a change in location for an existing privilege license holder. Allowing such uses is a result of oversights, but in the present situation, the system worked, and a tenant had requested a privilege license and the Collector's office had denied the request. Consequently, the zoning enforcement office had become involved. As a result of the enforcement action, the applicant was seeking approval of the uses which would permit the existing tenants to remain. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles added that he would relay to the Collector's office a need to coordinate better with Zoning in issuing privilege licenses. Chairperson Chachere asked for a listing of the types of uses which would be allowed in the C-1 zoning district. Ms. Bonds, reading from the Ordinance list, responded that barber and beauty shops; camera stores; cleaners pick-up station, and the like would be allowed, and that the neighbors are not objecting to these types of uses. 5 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. : 7 (Continued) FILE NO. : Z-4016-D Mr. Giles continued the reading from the list of permitted uses: an antique shop; banks and savings and loan offices; daycare; nurseries; and others which would not be noisy or be intense uses. Ms. Chachere asked whether, if the PCD were amended, some uses could be excluded. Mr. Giles responded that uses can be excluded and the PCD can be conditioned on complying with the Commissions limitations. Mr. Bonds replied that the applicant is requesting approval of only specific C-1 uses, primarily to allow the existing book store, cleaners pick-up station, and beauty shop to remain. Commissioner Nicholson observed that originally the plan was for a mixed office and commercial center; but, if the C-1 uses are allowed in the rear portion of the center, then the Center becomes a 100% commercial center, without the mixture of office and commercial. Commissioner Oleson suggested that the existing zoning uses be left in place, and that zoning enforcement should enforce the Ordinance. Ms. Bonds responded that such a position would penalize the small operations, the book store, cleaners, and beauty shop, that are not causing the problem, but would leave the dance studio alone which is causing the problem. Commissioner Oleson said that the PCD was approved and the neighborhood had been assured that the rear portion of the building would be 0-1 uses; that the neighbors can't trust the zoning if the agreement is not maintained. Commissioner Putnam asked if a PCD can be canceled. Mr. Giles responded that it can, but that staff would need to research the provisions for doing so; that the City has only canceled PCD's if they have not been acted on to implement them, but, he did not believe, the City had canceled any previously for violating the provision of the PCD. He suggested that, perhaps, the appropriate procedure was for zoning enforcement to seek a remedy in the courts for violating the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Walker asked Ms. Bonds for information on the square footage of the various uses in the rear 7,800 square feet of area zoned for 0-1 uses. Ms. Bonds indicated that Dance America takes 2,400 square feet, plus the family service agency leases an additional 900 square feet. 6 March 22., 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4016-D Mr. Walker continued that the area in question, then, is 4,000 square feet, less the vacant space. Therefore, he concluded, the 0-1 area which is in compliance with the 0-1 uses is about one-half of the area, and that perhaps the applicant should consider asking for a mixture of C-1 and 0-1 uses in the rear 7,800 square feet, with one-half of the area being allowed for each type use. This would retain the mixture of office and commercial uses. Ms. Bonds responded that the owner would agree to that type condition, and would agree to seek as tenants no additional non -0-1 uses; that the owner requested that the existing non -conforming uses be allowed to remain. Commissioner Woods asked if the Commission could place restrictions on the dance studio? He added that dance studios are for instruction; not a place to have parties at 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00 in the morning. Ms. Bonds replied that the Center owner would concede to the establishment of hours of operation and for a prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property. She reported that P&L Investment can enforce such provisions by way of the lease provisions. Staff interjected that a change in use brings with it a change in the parking and signage requirements. Mr. Turney said that if P&L Investment moves Dance American into the C-3 area of the Center, it only moves the problem down to be a nuisance to other neighbors; that "by 8:00 tonight", Dance America will get "cranked -up" and "it will be 1:00 or 1:30 before they go home". Chairperson Chachere asked Ms. Bonds for a suggestion on the hours of operation which might be imposed. Ms. Bonds responded that, since Dance America is an adult dance studio, its business was conducted primarily in the evening, but that 9:00 or 10:00 was acceptable, 10:00 being preferable. Commissioner Nicholson complained that there was insufficient information to make a determination at this time. Commissioner Putnam suggested that the item be deferred. Staff pointed out that, since this is an enforcement action, the deferral needs to be for a short time period, and suggested that the Commission continue the hearing at the April 5 Commission meeting. 7 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4016-D A motion was made and seconded that the matter be deferred until the April 5, 1994 Commission hearing. The motion passes with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The application letter from the applicant, dated May 9, 1985, specifically asked for C-3 uses in the front portion of the building and for 110-1 office" zoning in the rear 7,800 square feet. The staff write-up for the May 14, 1985 Planning Commission hearing relates a proposal for the following "mixed use development": 7,405 square feet for office/wholesale; 2,928 square feet for retail; and 7,800 square feet for office. The Planning Commission action paragraph relates: "The applicant stated a commitment to 'C-3' type uses on (the front portion of the building) and office uses on (the rear 7,800 square feet of the building)." Whether there was any realization on the part of the applicant or the Commission at that time that 110-1" included other uses besides "office" is unclear. Section 36-458 of the Code of Ordinances deals with revocation of PUD's. There is no mechanism for revoking PUD's for violating the provisions of the PUD. The means of dealing with a problem are through enforcement of the Ordinance as any other violation of the Zoning Ordinance. As long as the allowable uses of the PCD are being "re -visited" by the Commission as a result of the applicant's request for a change in those uses, then the Commission should be able to look at the establishment of limitations for user/tenants; i.e., the setting of hours of operation of the Center and the establishment of hours for garbage pick-up. This is done routinely for PUD's. 8 • March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -4249-A NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK -- LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of I-630, beginning approximately 0.1 mile east of Rodney Parham Rd. & extending east to Hughes St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• FREEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 620 W. 3rd. St., Suite 210 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72211 374-5417 223-9900 AREA: 12.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 1000 ZONING: C-3 to POD PROPOSED USES: Offices and Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None 1. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a minimum street right-of-way of 60 feet to permit dedication of a 50 foot right-of-way. 2. Waiver from the Master Street Plan and Subdivision Regulations which requires a sidewalk on both side of a commercial street to permit the construction of a sidewalk on one side only. 3. Variance from the Subdivision Regulation which restricts the length of a cul-de-sac to 1,000 feet to permit the cul-de-sac to be 1,700 feet in length. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD for the development of an office and office/warehouse project. The intent, as suggested, is to provide "a well -landscaped, attractive setting for businesses that need good access and exposure on I-630". The applicant maintains that, because of the shape of the site, access to the site, and the neighboring uses, the POD approach was chosen. The applicant proposes that all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and certain specified uses in the I-1, industrial park district, be permitted. Those uses in the I-1 district which are requested are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; March 2�, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4249-A light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant proposes to erect one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. The developer proposes to proceed with the development upon approval by the Board of Directors. There is the possibility that a two-stage development will be undertaken, with the initial development involving the construction of the roadway to Lot 4, then extending the development eastward as a second phase. The plan, at this time, is to either sell or retain and lease the project. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a POD which will permit all uses by right in the 0-3, general office district, and, in the I-1, industrial park district, the following uses: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The applicant suggests that, because of the features unique to the site, i.e. the '-L" shape bounded by Haven of Rest Cemetery on the south and I-630 on the north; the need for limiting access to one access point only in order to protect the abutting residential property to the east; and C-3 and I-2 uses to the south and west, the POD which mixes 0-3 and I-1 uses is appropriate. In order to protect the residential neighborhood to the east which lies along Hughes St., the applicant proposes a cul- de-sac street off Rodney Parham and no access to the site from Hughes St. This choice requires a cul-de-sac street of 1700 feet in length, and this exceeds the maximum allowable length of 1000 feet. A variance, therefore, is requested. Because of the narrowness of the site, a 50 foot street right-of-way is proposed. The Regulations require a 60 foot right-of-way for a commercial street; therefore, a waiver of this requirement is requested. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • z -4249-A Only one lot lies south of the street; the remainder of the area south of the street is the Haven of Rest Cemetery. Since there is no perceived need for a sidewalk along the south side of the street, the applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk on the north side only. A waiver from the requirement is requested. The applicant requests approval of: one 36 foot high, free standing project sign on the northern property line, with 500 square feet of area; one 4.5 foot by 6 foot project entrance sigh is proposed to be located at Freeway Drive and Rodney Parham; one ground mounted monument sign per lot is proposed, with a maximum area of 90 square feet per sign; and wall mounted and incidental signage is requested as allowed in the 0-3, General Office District, sign regulations. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been mostly cleared. Some trees still stand on the site, mostly in the northeast portion of the tract. The topography rises from an elevation of 318 feet above M.S.L. at the southwest corner of the property to 390 feet at the northeast corner of the property, or a rise of 72 feet. The zoning maps show the zoning classification of the site to be PCD. The site was approved for a PCD development in 1985, and the zoning maps still show that designation, but since the proposed development was not constructed, and the time limit as specified in the Regulations has expired, the designation has lapsed and the PCD designation will be removed from the map. The property reverts to the former R- 5 zoning classification. The property to the east, in the residential area along Hughes St. is zoned R-4. The property which includes I-630 on the north side of the tract, and the bridge ramp for Hughes St. which forms the northeast boundary of the site is zoned R-2. The property to the south, which includes the cemetery, is zoned R-2. The property immediately to the west is zoned C-3, and across Rodney Parham to the west and across W. 12th. St. to the south is C-3 and I-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a 36 foot wide roadway is required, and that the right-of-way is required by the Regulations to be 60 feet wide. A sidewalk is required to be constructed on both side of the street. The developer is to comply with 3 ' March 2�, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4249 - Section 31-402, Street Lighting Installation, requirements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal charges. On-site fire protection will probably be required for some lots. Wastewater indicates that a sewer main is located on the property, but that is has never been accepted by Wastewater. A sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. The applicant can contact Wastewater Utility for details. Landscape review comments that landscape areas equal to a 3 foot wide landscape strip are required between public vehicular parking areas and the buildings they serve. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and eastern perimeters of the site adjacent to land zoned residential. This screen must be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot wide easement along the east, north, and west property lines. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-202, Dead-end streets and culs-de-sac, paragraph (a) stipulates that "Culs-de-sac shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet." The Master Street Plan, page 9, section 4, specifies that the design standard of a collector street is the standard for a commercial street. That detail, as well as Section 31-209, Street Classification and Standards, of the Subdivision Regulations, specifies that the right-of-way for a collector (or commercial) street is to be 60 feet in width and have a street width of 36 feet. Deficiencies in the submittal include: the landscape plan and the requirements for buffering need to be submitted; the quantitative date required in the submission needs to be furnished; the topographic cross section must be provided; and, a legal description of the POD site must be submitted. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Boyle Park Planning District. The plan recommends commercial for the western section and multi -family for the area north of the cemetery to Hughes St. The proposed use pattern is an 4 1. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4249-A acceptable alternative if there is an open space buffer along the eastern edge. This would be both a non -access as well as a separation indicator. E. ANALYSIS: The. requested uses include all uses by right in the 0-3 and certain specified uses in the I-1 zoning districts. The 0-3 uses include not only office uses, but many commercial and institutional uses. The I-1 uses listed are: ambulance service headquarters post; appliance repair; hauling and storage company; job printing, lithographer, printing, or blueprinting plant; laboratory, landscape service; lawn and garden center, enclosed; light fabrication and assembly Process; miniwarehouse; office warehouse; photography studio; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; school, business; studio, broadcasting or recording; warehouse and wholesaling. The types of requested uses, then, are broad -ranging. The stated intention of the developer is to develop an office and office/warehouse project, and the uses which have been listed are in keeping with this intention. The I-1 uses which are more intense, e.g., ambulance service headquarters post; hauling and storage company; plumbing, electrical, heating, or air conditioning shop; and, warehouse and wholesaling, should be limited to the western portion of the site and should not be in close proximity to the residential area. A no vehicle access easement should be platted along the property line abutting the Hughes Street lots to forestall future drives or access. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD as requested, with the requirements noted above regarding, excluding the more intense uses from the eastern portion of the site and the platting of a "no vehicle access easement" at the Hughes Street side property line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The representatives of the developer, Mr. David Simmons, and the project engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. The Committee reviewed with the applicant's representatives the list of deficiencies and questions contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Simmons and Mr. McGetrick replied that the needed information and corrections would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 5 f. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4249-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and recommended approval of the POD subject to a "No vehicle access" easement being platted along the east property line abutting Hughes Street and the Hughes Street property, and a restriction being imposed on the location of any future ambulance service headquarters post so that any such facility will not affect the residential area. Staff also related that the applicant wanted it clarified that the site plan which has been submitted is schematic and a representation of possible building sites and footprints; but that a later date when tenants and buyers are lined up, there may need to be recombinations of lots and the configuration of buildings may have to be changed. David Simmons, representing the applicant, distributed to Commission members copies of a letter delivered to staff prior to the meeting. The letter addressed the concerns regarding: 1) retaining flexibility in lot combination and building size and orientation; 2) the location and height of the project sign; 3) a self-imposed limitation of 2 stories in height for the buildings; 4) the restriction of uses for the western -most lot; and 5) the construction of perimeter fencing. Mr. Simmons mentioned that the project involves the creation of 6 lots on a 13 acre tract. Because the land is a strip of land which had access only to Hughes Street on the ease, and did not have access to Rodney Parham to the west, the developer negotiated with the property owner to the west along Rodney Parham in order to construct a street to the proposed development through this other property to the west. with this accomplished, the proposed development could gain access from the west, from Rodney Parham, which is a commercial street, and could eliminate the need to have access to Hughes Street, which is a residential street. The resulting development, is a cul-de-sac off Rodney Parham, with no access to Hughes St. Mr. Simmons explained that the site plan which shows buildable areas are not to be considered fixed building "footprints"; that there is a need for some flexibility in the design and configuration of future buildings. He related that the developer needed some flexibility in the height and location of the project sign, since the location which is designated on the plat is the low point in the topography and a 36 foot high sign could not be seen from the freeway. He related that the buildings in the development would be limited to 2 stores in height. Mr. Simmons mentioned that he and other representatives of the applicant had held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed development; that the neighborhood concerns had centered on the fencing of the project, especially along the Hughes St. lots and frontage; that there had been a desire on the part of some neighbors that the fence be a wrought iron and brick or stone fence, but that the developer was willing only to construct a wood privacy or chain line with evergreen 6 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4249-A screening device; and, that the consensus had been for a chain link fence with evergreens planted for privacy. Mr. Simmons also related that the developer is willing to limit the Lot 9 uses to exclude the ambulance service post, electrical shops, and HVAC shops. The warehouses on Lot 9 will have their accesses on the north and west sides of the buildings; not any on the east or south faces of the buildings. Mr. Simmons requested all allowed uses be permitted on the Lot 8 tract and those further west. Chairperson Chachere asked for comments from those who had turned in cards indicating a desire to speak on the issue. Chris White addressed the Commission. She related that the development and its character area a "big deal" to her and her neighbors; that the homes in the neighborhood are the "big investment" for them, and the development must look good and be in character with the neighborhood. She complained that a chain link fence would not be in character with the neighborhood; but that a stone or brick and wrought iron fence would look good. She complained that the mini -storage units are placed closest to the rear lot line where they can be seen from Hughes St. Paul Donahu introduced himself as living at the southeast corner of the proposed development, and said that he had no objection to the development; that it was the best in 20 years since it considered the neighborhood's need for no access to Hughes St. He related, however, that he would like to see a fence along the west boundary of the project which would be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons responded that a wood privacy fence had been planned, but that at the neighborhood meeting, the consensus had seemed to favor a chain link fence with evergreen scrubs planted in front of the fence. The developer had, therefore, agreed to that request. He went on to say that the developer is flexible on the type of fence, but that a wrought iron fence would be cost prohibitive; the developer cannot afford such a fence. Chairperson Chachere summarized the situation, saying that the neighbors are now saying that they do not want a chain link fence, and that the developer will build a wood privacy fence. She then asked staff for the requirements on fencing. Bob Brown related that the requirement is for an opaque screen, and that it can either be a "good neighbor" wood fence or a chain link fence with evergreen shrubs planted every 30 inches which will grown to a minimum of 6 feet in height within 3 years. A brick or stone fence would meet the requirements. A chain link fence is not encouraged unless the neighbors want it. The plantings would be on the development side of the fence, leaving the chain link on the neighbor's side of the fence. 7 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4249-A Mr. Simmons said that, at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors had said that they did not want a wood fence; that they wanted to be able to see through it. They had wanted a chain link fence with evergreen plantings. After that meeting, Ms. White had proposed a wrought iron fence with brick columns every 30 feet. The developer, Mr. Simmons concluded, could not afford such a fence, and asks that it not be required. The developer, he said, would build either a wood or chain link fence, as preferred by the neighbors. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarifiction on the status of the three residential lots on Hughes Street which are owned by the developer. Staff reported that the three lots are not included in the preliminary plat area or the POD area; that they remain as residential lots in the abutting subdivision. Ralph white asked to address the Commission. He indicated that he is the husband of Chris white. He complained that the entire neighborhood is not affected by the proposed development; but that only 3 or 4 homes are affected; that it does not matter what the entire neighborhood wants, but what those directly affected want. He continued that he and his wife were adamant that they do not want a chain link fence; that the developer should be required to put up a decent fence that is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Simmons replied that the developers want to build a proper fence, but that a brick and wrought iron fence was not feasible. A privacy wood fence as required by the Ordinance would be built if that is what the neighbors want. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the project sign issue. She indicated that the plan shows a 36 foot high sign on I-630, and wondered if neighbors on the project side of the freeway, as well as across the freeway, were aware of what an intrusion the sign would bring. Mr. McGetrick explained that the grade at the point shown on the plan for the location of the sign is 25 feet below the grade of the freeway; therefore, the sign would actually be about 10 feet above the travel lane of the freeway. Staff related that, according to the Ordinance, the sign may be 36 feet above the center line of the nearest freeway lane; the height is not measured from the ground at the base of the sign. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the restriction on the height of the sign needed to be based on the height above the freeway. 8 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4249-A Mr. McGetrick suggested that a height of 7 to 10 feet above the freeway lane would be acceptable. Chairperson Chachere asked for a motion to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign above the freeway lanes of 7 feet. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD with the restriction on the height of the sign. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 9 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5106 - NAME: THE WASHING WELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.4 miles west of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: ASCOMB ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., ATTORNEY 1619 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 378-7720 AREA: 0.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to utilize an existing commercial building at the proposed location as a laundromat. The 0.3 acre site contains a 2800 square foot building, and the site is not currently being utilized. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and pave a parking area at the front of the building to provide 8 parking spaces. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD in order for the applicant to utilize an existing commercial building situated on a lot which is currently zoned R-2 for a laundromat. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and to provide paved parking at the front of the building to accommodate 8 vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing building is a vacant, deteriorated building located on a lot in the Pankey community. There are, as indicated on the survey, encroachments by neighboring buildings on the lots which the applicant plans to develop. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning exclusively on all other properties in the area. There is an illegal non -conforming use in the residential structure immediately to the west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be required, as will construction of a sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage of the site. Water Works and Wastewater have no objections to the proposal. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide easement at the perimeter of the lot. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review indicates that an opaque 6 foot high screen is required to screen the proposed use from the residential property to the south, east, and west. This screen can be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. The landscape strip width west of the proposed parking lot must be increased to 6 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittal is seriously deficient: there was no project narrative submitted; the survey is inadequate; no landscape plan was submitted; no Bill of Assurance was furnished; etc. There has been no contact with the applicant since January when the file was "dropped off", with no personal meeting, and a telephone call a few weeks later to confirm that the file had been received. There has been no confirmation that the required notification, either by the placing of the sign or the mailing of certified letters, has taken place. At a previous Commission hearing, when an identical problem in the Pankey area surfaced regarding encroachments across property lines, it was determined that such encroachments are civil matters between property owners, and are not within the scope of concern of the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District. The Plan recommends single family uses for the Pankey area. There have been no changes to warrant an amendment to the plan to allow for commercial land uses in Pankey. 2 March 2�, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A E. ANALYSIS• The proposed land use, according to the Land Use Plan, is inappropriate to the area. The submittal is deficient. There has been no verification that the required notification has been accomplished. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed with the Committee the comments made in the discussion outline and presented the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the review of the deficiencies noted and for action on the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and related that the notice requirements had been met by the applicant. Mr. Willard Proctor, an attorney representing the applicant, outlined the request, and explained that the current proposal is an identical one to a request made to the Commission approximately 2 years earlier. At that time, he said, the Commission had recommended approval of the request to the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors had denied the rezoning request. Mr. Proctor related that during the 2 -year interim, he and the applicant's representative, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, had been working with the neighborhood to gain the neighborhood's approval of their proposal, and that he felt there is now a consensus of the neighborhood to allow the commercial use of the applicant's property for the Washing Well laundromat. Mr. Proctor continued, saying that fairly recently, the City had allowed a non-residential use of the property in the abutting property to the west: a neighborhood alert center. He complained that the applicant had been waiting and waiting for approval of the non-residential use of their property, but that others had come in and were getting approval for non-residential uses which are not that dissimilar to the type uses the applicant had been pursuing. 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant's building was designed and used as a commercial building from the beginning; that it was never a residential structure; that it had originally been a nightclub until it was heavily damaged by a fire; that it was sitting vacant and was deteriorating, and was an eyesore to the neighborhood; that the building was a non -conforming building which had lost its legal non -conforming status due to it being vacant after the fire; that the applicant had put a new roof on the building a few years back in order to keep the building from deteriorating further; but, that the applicant wished to continue the repairs in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and put the building to a commercial use. The required right-of-way will be dedicated, Mr. Proctor said, and the AP&L easement will be granted. The Landscape Ordinance requirements will be complied with. Mr. Proctor went on to say that the real issue is apparently the land use issue; that this issue has been the "sticky" point all along. He explained that there has always been one person who has said that she spoke "on behalf of the neighborhood" who has said that the neighborhood does not want the proposed use for the building. On the contrary, he said, when the applicant talks to people in the neighborhood, the applicant is told by the neighbors that they are in favor of the proposal; that, in fact, many say they would use the laundromat if it were allowed. There is not, he related, a laundromat anywhere in the neighborhood. Since the individual who had spoken in opposition to the non- residential use of the property is the same person who had gained approval of the neighborhood alert center next door, Mr. Proctor said that he could not see how she could still be in opposition to the applicant's proposed non-residential use of their property. Chairperson Chachere inquired of Mr. Proctor if the applicant is aware of the Donaghey Study for land uses in the Pankey area which is currently on-going, and, if so, if the proposed use complies with the Study's results? Mr. Proctor responded that the applicant is aware of the Study, and that according to the Study, the applicant's property is supposed to be a commercial use. Chairperson Chachere asked if the applicant had discussed the proposed use with the neighborhood association? Mr. Proctor explained that Mr. Bickerstaff had been in communication with various individual in the neighborhood. Mr. Tim Polk, Assistant Director, Neighborhoods and Planning, interjected that the Study calls for the area in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property to remain residential; that 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5106-A those involved in the preparation of the "Pankey Community Plan" have indicated that commercial uses should be located on the north side of Highway 10, and located further east towards the Kroger Center. Mr. Polk also explained that the abutting use which Mr. Proctor had cited as a "neighborhood alert center" is not a City -operated alert center, but a support center operated for the neighborhood, and that the approval of its use had not entailed a rezoning, but a conditional use permit. The property had remained zoned R-2. Mr. Proctor reiterated that the existing structure is an eyesore, but that, because it is a commercial structure, nothing can be done with it without rezoning. The applicant has a substantial investment in the structure and needs to be allowed to use it. Mr. Bickerstaff pointed out that there are several similar non- conforming uses on the south side of Highway 10, but, in the applicant's case, the structure had lost its non -conforming status due to extensive fire damage and its subsequent vacancy. Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to what role Mr. Bickerstaff had in the proposal. Mr. Bickerstaff responded that the owner is ASCOMB Enterprises, Inc., and that he is related to one of the principles. Commissioner Willis asked for clarification of the proposed signage. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant would comply with the regulations and would install a monument -type sign. Commissioner Nicholson related that the Pankey community has a long history, and that the City had made a commitment to keep the Pankey community residential; that until she heard from the community that the community is ready for a change, she would not support the rezoning. Mrs. Nicholson indicated to the applicant that perhaps a deferral of the request should be sought until the Donaghey Study is completed. Mr. Proctor indicated that, indeed, a deferral would be appropriate, and that he did request a deferral. Commissioner Walker warned that the applicant's property is only 150 feet deep; that by denying such applicants use of their property, the City is holding citizens hostage of a Plan for planning purposes. If the City Plan calls for the applicant's land to be a buffer to the residential property to the south, then the City needs to acquire the property. If the City is not allowing the property to be used by the applicant, then the City needs to start paying rent on the property, he said. Mr. Walker 67 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: Z -5106-A continued, saying that all other non -conforming uses in Pankey have been recognized by the Donaghey Study; that the applicant's property is the only one which is not being recognized due to its loss of its non -conforming status. The Study needs to address the situation regarding the applicant's property, since the building is a commercial structure. Mr. Polk explained that the 'plan" is the Pankey Community Plan, and that it is being formalized and should be completed in a matter of weeks. Chairperson Chachere asked if the Commission were ready to vote on a motion to defer the hearing until the next Subdivision agenda. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 6 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -5412-B NAME: WALGREENS RODNEY PARHAM & HINSON -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Rodney Parham Rd. & Hinson Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: HAWKINS-MCLANE THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC. 7136 S. Yale St., Suite 300 201 S. Izard St. Tulsa, OK 74136 Little Rock, AR 72201 (918) 492-2435 375-5331 AREA: 2.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Commercial The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop the 2.41 acre site for a retail drug store. The proposed PCD entails the construction of a 28 foot high building with 13,500 square feet, or occupying 13% of the site. The parking area is designed to accommodate 60 vehicles, and occupies approximately 36% of the site. This leaves approximately 50% of the site to be landscaped or preserved as natural and landscape buffer area. The area immediately north of the developed site area is proposed to be preserved as open space. Parking lot lighting is to be designed to maintain a 5 foot candle level. The light fixtures are planned to consist of a recessed lamp in a cowling with a reflector design to focus the light in a narrow downward beam. The fixtures are planned to have a mounting height of 12 feet. Wall fixtures are proposed to be mounted on the rear of the building with the same photometrics as the parking lot fixtures. The proposed signage will include building mounted signage and a monument type sign at the corner of Hinson and Rodney Parham Rd. The planned hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., but the applicant proposes to reserve the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. as possible alternative hours of operation. The delivery hours, however, are to be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The receiving area consists solely of a 6 foot wide by 7 foot high door; there is no dock or truck well. Trash pick-up is to be scheduled for twice weekly during business hours. A drive-thru is proposed, and the service for the drive-thru is limited to pharmacy orders. An intercom system for communicating March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B with customers at the drive-thru will be required. Required Master Street Plan improvements to the boundary street are planned to be provided. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for a PCD for the construction of a retail drug store on a 2.414 acre site at the northwest corner of Rodney Parham Rd. and Hinson Rd. The proposed development entails the construction of a 28 foot high, 13,500 square foot building and parking for 60 vehicles. The building occupies 13% of the site; the parking and drives occupy another 36% of the site. The remaining 50% of the site is planned landscaping and natural and planted buffer. The north 139 feet, from the northern extent of the planned improvements to the right-of-way line of Buff Ln., is proposed to be a natural and landscape buffer and open space. The required Master Street Plan improvements are to be constructed on Rodney Parham Rd. and Hinson Rd. The improvements on Rodney Parham Rd. will entail construction of additional traffic lanes as indicated on the plan. Approval of the signage is requested for building mounted signage and for a monument sign at the corner of Hinson Rd. and Rodney Parham Rd. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence and a number of out -buildings. There are many trees located on the site, especially along the north one-third of the site. The topography rises about 10 feet from south to north. The existing zoning of the size is R-2, with R-2 properties to the north, northwest, and west. Across Rodney Parham to the east is a PCD site; across Hinson Rd. to the south is R-5 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering will require the dedication of right-of-way and construction of Master Street Plan improvements on Rodney Parham. A sidewalk is to be constructed along Hinson Rd and on Buff Ln. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. Water Works has no comments in response to the submittal. Wastewater reports that sewer is available in Hinson Rd. and in Buff Ln. The developer will be required to extend sewer 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5412-B service to the property. Landscape review indicates that the full average buffer width along Hinson Rd. is 20 feet, and is 12 feet along Rodney Parham Rd. The buffer width along Hinson Rd. should be a minimum of 13 feet in width. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the western perimeter to screen the proposed use from the residential zoned property. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain District. The Land Use Plan recommends office for the north side of the Rodney Parham Rd. -Hinson Rd. intersection. A low intensity use such as a drug store is reasonable, as long as a large amount of reserved landscaped open space is provided to buffer the use from the single family uses. The use, in the absence of a request for alternative uses, will be limited to the requested retail drug store use. Any other future use will necessitate amending the approved PCD. A preliminary Bill of Assurance will need to be provided. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use, as proposed in the application, is in keeping with the Land Use Plan. The site is heavily and extensively buffered from the neighbors to the north and northwest; a 139 foot natural and landscaped buffer is proposed. The applicant has taken care to provide lighting which will not be offensive, and minimal signage. There is a drive-thru which has been proposed, and the question remaining to be answered regarding this drive-thru involves the intercom system: will it be adequately buffered to keep the sound from being heard by area residents. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval, subject to: 1) the intercom system for the drive-thru being buffered to limit sound transmission to the extent of the perimeter of the site; 2) an 8 foot high brick wall being constructed along the north building line and the west property line; and 3) open 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B space buffer to the north is to be left in its natural state, except for the required demolition and the buildings, and any additional trees which need to be planted in vacant areas. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Representatives of the applicant and the representative of the engineering firm were present. Staff outlined the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The Committee questioned the engineer, Mr. Frank Riggins, about the planned improvements on Rodney Parham Rd. and on other item cited in the discussion outline. Mr. Riggins indicated that he would confirm the anticipated improvements and make the needed changes on the plans. The Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the request, and reported that drawings have been received which reflect all changes required as a result of the staff review. One of the requirements was the inclusion of an 8 foot high brick fence along the west property line and along the north side of the parking lot to separate the developed area from the proposed open space. This has been added to the drawings by the applicant. Staff reported that the attorney for the opposition had delivered petitions to staff, and that these petitions are available for inspection by Commission members. Jim Hathaway, representing the developer, who he identified as Hawkins -Smith, of Boise, Idaho, indicated that the request involves developing the site for lease to Walgreens. He explained that the proposed development provides good buffering, and is an appropriate land use for the Rodney Parham -Hinson -Green Mountain intersection. He reminded those in attendance that with a PCD, the developer must abide by the terms of the approved plan. He indicated that Mr. Hawkins was present, as well as another representative of the company, Mr. McLain, Mrs. Cullum, the proposed seller of the property, Mr. David Jones, Mrs. Cullum's real estate agent, and Mr. Frank Riggins, representing the engineering firm who prepared the site development drawings. Mr. Hathaway distributed to the Commission members and staff a booklet which he explained contained miniature versions of the exhibits previously submitted, and he explained that the booklet represented the assurances the developer was presenting with the development. He added that the development was solely for Walgreens; that any other use which might eventually occupy the building would have to come back through the public meeting process. 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B Mr. Hathaway outlined the contents of the pamphlet. He explained that the entrance of the building is to face south-east towards intersection; that nearly 50;% of the site is devoted to landscaping and open space; that there are 2 proposed entry points, one off Rodney Parham and one off Hinson; that the development includes improvements to the boundary streets, most notably to Rodney Parham where an additional traffic lane and a right turn lane are to be provided. He summarized the proposed development: construction of the proposed building is to be all brick, with a covered drive-thru for prescription sales only, and the intercom system is to be similar to those at a bank drive -up window, not like a drive -up restaurant order board; the signage is to be on the east and south sides of the building only, and the street signage is to be monument signs on each of the street frontages; lighting is to be from 18 foot high standards, which is less than the height of the building, using down -lighting with narrow spread reflectors; delivery is to be by way of a 6 foot by 7 foot overhead door, with no dock or truck well; that the hours of operation are from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.; that there is to be no alcohol sales from the store. The effects of the site lighting to properties to the north and through the trees and shrubbery, he explained, would be insignificant. Outlining the landscaping provisions, Mr. Hathaway mentioned the brick wall to separate the developed from undeveloped areas of the site, as well as along the west property line, and enumerated the number of trees which will be retained in the north open space as well as the trees and plantings which will be added to the area. Speaking to the character of the location, he indicated that the intersection has 16,000 vehicles per day thorough it, and that the corner to the south is occupied by a large apartment complex, with the other two corners being commercial/retail developments. He suggested that the current residential zoning of the corner considered for the Walgreens development is not realistic; that this fourth corner is not a residential piece of property. Mr. Hathaway mentioned the photograph in the booklet which show the view from the northwest corner of the property through the trees, and he indicated that, dense as the growth is, additional trees and shrubs will be planted. In summary, Mr. Hathaway suggested that the developer had taken great pains to buffer the site from the residential property to the north and west, and had committed a great deal of the land to open space and landscaping. He asserted that the City needs to encourage quality development of this type. Mark Spradley introduced himself as counsel for a substantial number of property owners who are opposed to the development. He indicated that, at the conclusion of his presentation, the following persons would be making presentations: Mr. Ernie Peters, a traffic engineer; Mr. Jack Castin, an architect and city planner; and, Mr. Roland Aberg of the Robert Lamb Hart city planning firm of San Francisco and New York. 5 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B Mr. Spradley said that the problem with the proposed development is that Rodney Parham and Hinson are the dividing line between commercial -retail uses and residential uses, and, he asserted, the commercial uses should stop where they now stop. He challenged the applicant's characterization of the Walgreens as a neighborhood drug store; he said that with 13,500 square feet, the store is larger than the Osco Drug Store in the Colony West Shopping Center. Traffic there, he continued, was crowded. Such drug stores typically have only a small percentage of their floor area devoted to the pharmacy, usually about 1,000 square feet; therefore, over 12,000 square feet could be expected to be devoted to retail sales. He related that the developer is anticipating developing 4 area Walgreens stores, so they are, he asserted, planning on heavily promoting the retail end of the business. It is designed to draw customers regionally. Mr. Spradley complained that the 0.8 acre/140 foot deep buffer with a brick wall will not reduce the impact of the noise, traffic, and night lighting to the residential neighborhood to the north and west; it will still be a highly visible and intrusive retail operation affecting the entire Pleasant Valley neighborhood. He said that he understood that Mrs. Cullum wanted to sell her property, and that she wanted to get the most from the sale as possible, but, he concluded, this should not be the justification for a change in zoning. Mr. Spradley then indicated that no one favors the development, and asked persons in the audience who were opposed to the development to stand. (A dozen or so persons stood.) He then asked if there were anyone present, excluding the developer and those representing the developer, who favored the development to stand. (No one stood.) Mr. Spradley said that there are lots of reasons for opposition to the proposal. He said that the area residents oppose it. It is intrusive, and it is destructive of the Pleasant valley neighborhood. It will interfere with the characteristics of the established neighborhood. It will bring more traffic to an already crowded street. It will bring late night retail activity. The night lighting will be intrusive. The drive-thru "squawk box" will be intrusive; the Cullum's who live immediately to the north of the proposed site can already hear the Burger King "squawk box" which is 5 times further away. The architecture of the building is not in harmony with the existing homes in Pleasant Valley. In all, the proposal is an intrusion to the quiet enjoyment of the residents of their property. Mr. Spradley continued, saying that, in addition to the residents' objecting to the proposal, the neighborhood businesses object to the Walgreens development. He said that there are 3 other pharmacies in the immediate vicinity, with 5 or 6 more March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5412-B within a few miles. He complained that it is unreasonable to undercut the existing businesses who are established, and who made their decision to locate in the area based on the presumed availability of properly zoned land. He said that if the change in zoning is allowed, a competitor will be allowed to get between these existing businesses and their service area. Mr. Spradley referred to the petitions which staff had indicated were in hand. He said that the original petition presented to staff had 205 names of Pleasant Valley residents on it; that another 42 names had been added to the petition and submitted to staff. Now, he indicated, he had another 16 names which were to be added. He said that the Pleasant Valley Country Club and the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association are in opposition to the proposed development, and related that the Property Owners Association had 141 mailed -in responses in opposition to the development. Mr. Spradley related that the Land Use Plan has, for years, shown the property in question to be planned for office use. The City, he asserted, cannot zone property contrary to the Land Use Plan, and, to change the Land Use Plan, several things must be in place: the site must be in an established or expanding business district; there needs to be little or no other property in close proximity which is already zoned appropriately; there needs to be a neighborhood need for the use for which the zoning change is being sought; the proposed change should not be controversial; and, the change should not be inequitable to those businesses already established and who made their business decisions and relied on the Land Use Plan. None, he asserted, of the conditions have been met in order to justify a change in the Land Use Plan. A change would be inappropriate, and it would be arbitrary. The neighbors, he said, would not be opposed to a development which would complement the character of the residential neighborhood, but strongly oppose this development. An office development would allow the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood to return at nights and weekends; this would not. Commissioner Willis, addressing Mr. Spradley, asked if the neighbors realized that an office development would probably not have the extensive buffers as the current application contains. Mr. Spradley responded that the buffer is pretty much illusory; that the applicant took pictures at a location which showed heavy buffering, but that if they moved 15 feet either way, the effect would be different; that you can see all the way through the site. Trees and a brick wall do not, he asserted, stop the increase of traffic on the streets and the noise from the traffic. The neighborhood will be faced with late night retail activity and the danger this brings. He then cited the recent 7 March 2�, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B shooting at a similar late night retail store, and said that this type activity does not seldom go along with office uses. Offices, he said, shut down in the evenings and on weekends. Mr. Ernie Peters introduced himself and cited his qualifications for speaking to the traffic situation which will be created by the development. The east Rodney Parham leg of the intersection currently handles 18,000 vehicles per day; the Hinson leg of the intersection handles 12,000 vehicles; the Green Mountain Dr. leg of the intersection handles about 11,000; and, the north leg of the Rodney Parham intersection handles 15-20,000 vehicles, with 16,000 vehicles per day on the section of Rodney Parham to the north where the street is a 2 -lane roadway. If the site is developed for retail use, it can be expected to generate 970 vehicle trips per day, or, say, 1000. Therefore, he concluded, the proposed store will add 1000 vehicles per day to the traffic at the intersection. Added to the 16,000 vehicles per day already using Rodney Parham, and the problem is significant. An office development, on the other hand, would add only one-third the traffic. The retail use is equivalent to a 100 -lot residential subdivision in the amount of traffic generated. The intersection, he asserted, is already inadequate, and the proposed improvements will not solve the problem, since the increased traffic will cause additional congestion and back-ups. He also cautioned that anyone turning left from the north -bound Rodney Parham Rd. traffic lane will be forced to turn across 2-4 lanes of oncoming traffic, and, since there is only one north- bound lane, such a movement will block others driving north. Commissioner Selz, addressing Mr. Peters, asked if Mr. Peters was saying that the Walgreens would generate 1000 more vehicles per day than would otherwise pass by the site; or, he continued, would some of the vehicles be passing the site anyway? Mr. Peters explained that the 1000 number is the total trips in and out of the site, and that in businesses like the Walgreens store, one can typically assume that approximately 25% of the vehicles will already on the street. The net increase, then, would be expected to be about 750 vehicles per day. Commissioner Putnam, classifying Mr. Peters statements, said that the 1000 vehicles is in and out trips, representing 500 cars. If 25% of the cars are already on the street, then the Walgreens will generate 350 vehicles per day. Commissioner Walker related that a PCD had been approved for the northeast corner of the intersection, and, addressing Mr. Peters, asked if the improvements, when completed as part of the PCD for the opposing corner, would help the situation. He asked, when the improvements are completed, what the capacity of the intersection would be? 1.1 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B Mr. Peters responded that the capacity will be approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. Commissioner Walker asked if the Master Street Plan calls for north Rodney Parham to be improved? Mr. Peters indicated that Rodney Parham to the north is to be constructed to minor arterial standards with 4 or 5 lanes, but that the City has no plans for construction of this roadway. Mr. Jack Castin addressed the Commission. He outlined his qualifications and credentials, and presented a hand-out to the Commissioners summarizing his remarks. He presented a lesson in the general principles used in developing a comprehensive land use plan, and explained that the current Land Use Plan evolved over a number of years. A Land Use Plan is not static, but is ever evolving. However, he said, changes should involve citizen participation. Mr. Castin said that through a number of versions of the Land Use Plan, the northwest corner of Rodney Parham and Hinson has always indicated that the planned use should be office. The reason, he suggested, is that office is more compatible to the residential neighborhood than commercial uses are. Office use act as a transition between the commercial and residential uses. Mr. Castin outlined the opposition to the proposed use. He said that fundamentally the neighbors were opposed because it violates the principle of having a transition between the two uses. If it were compatible, you would not have to build an 8 foot high fence and have the extensive buffering. Further, he said, the proposed use is not a neighborhood use, but a regional one with area -wide marketing. The service area of the Walgreens, he said, is a 2 1/2 mile radius, covering 19.6 square miles. He said that there is no unmet need in the area which makes the Walgreens necessary; that 4 pharmacies exist within the immediate area, and that there is much commercially zoned property available. A better solution, he concluded, would be a development for professional offices or some more dense residential uses. These, he said, would blend with the character of the Pleasant Valley neighborhood. Mr. Roland Aberg addressed the Commission, and presented his credentials to speak to the situation. His analysis included observations that the area to the north and west is a mature residential neighborhood, with the lot under consideration being the "cornerstone" or "gateway" to the neighborhood; that any development should complement the neighborhood. The proposed development defies this principle. It is inconceivable, he 9 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5412-B observed, that a site with the view and orientation that the site in question has should be separated from the neighborhood. The development of the site should, he said, take advantage of the beauty of the golf course, lake, and existing open space. In any plan, the site should be a transition zone, and office or higher density residential uses should be chosen. Mr. Aberg said that a change in zoning as the one being considered would be an abandonment of the Land Use Plan, and said that, without citizen involvement, this was inappropriate. Mr. Aberg pointed out that the Walgreens building acts as a sign itself, and the roof and building facade are used for advertising. He related that trees cannot screen the store from the residential area. He reported that to the northwest, along Valley Club Rd., the topography is higher than the site, so the view from the road will be spoiled by the store. The building, he said, is 29 feet high; with an 8 foot high fence, 21 feet of the building will be seen. Since the building elevations do not show the roof -top air conditioning equipment, the height will actually be greater than the 29 feet. The existing landscaping is not adequate to screen the building and roof -top equipment. Mr. Aberg indicated that the proposed development is inconsistent with sound planning principles, and that, far from being a "planned unit development", it is a piecemeal approach in its plan. He urged the Commission to deny the application. Mr. Tom Thrash spoke. He introduced himself as the 1993 president of the Country Club and on its Board of Directors. He reported that the Club has 700 members, and that he spoke on their behalf in saying that the Club opposed the proposed development. He related that Walgreens, far from being a neighborhood pharmacy, is the seventeenth largest retailer in the country, with 8 1/2 billion in sales. With 1900 stores, then each store can be expected to generate 4 1/2 million in sales each year. This, he suggested, makes the proposed Walgreens a competitor with K -Mart, Wal-Mart, and the like. The volume of traffic will be great, with people coming and going till all hours. It is not, a "low intensity use", as indicated in the staff write-up in the agenda packet. He urged the Commission to keep Pleasant Valley beautiful. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Thrash if the Board would oppose an office zoning of the site. Mr. Thrash responded that the Board had recognized the office potential of the site. Mr. Dick Zeeman addressed the Commission, saying that he lived 200 feet form the site. He was opposed to the use because it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and because of the effect it would have on the value of homes. 10 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5412-B Mrs. Carol Meyer spoke. She related that the site provided a beautiful buffer of the pond and park -like area on Valley Club from the commercial uses and traffic beyond on Rodney Parham and Hinson. People, she said, jog, fish, and play in the quiet area along Valley Club and the pond. This tranquil area would be jeopardized. She also pointed out that traffic, if faced with a bottle -neck at the Rodney Parham -Hinson intersection, would start cutting thorough on Wendy and Buff Lanes, and the quiet residential area would be destroyed. Commissioner Putnam criticized those in opposition to the proposal, saying that everyone would be happy if things would simply stay like they have been for 25 years. He said that the developer had provided the best buffer he had ever seen, and that he understood that the developer was even willing to give the open space buffer to the property owners association as a park. He said that with adequate buffers, the use would be compatible. Mr. Spradley responded that the opposition was not saying that there should not be change, but that since the Land Use Plan had called for the use to be office for years, the opposition was based on the change from office to commercial use at the corner. Commissioner Putnam replied that those who had been calling and talking with him were saying that they did not want a change in the way the corner had been for years. Mr. Spradley asked what changes have occurred which justify the change in the Land Use Plan. Ron Newman, with the City planning staff, reported that the staff had always considered the corner to be a potentially a non- residential use area, therefore, in the Land Use Plan, had shown it for office use. He explained that, if it had been shown for commercial or mixed office and commercial, a commercial request would have come in. The staff wanted to be selective in the use, and felt that a pharmacy met the qualifications for the type use which could, with proper buffering, be compatible to the residential areas to the north and west. The Rodney Parham - Hinson intersection is a major intersection, and the proposed use qualifies as an C-1, neighborhood commercial use. Mr. Newman explained that the public hearing being conducted in connection with the change in zoning was also satisfying the requirement for a public hearing on the change in the Land Use Plan, and that an ordinances amending the Land Use Plan would be submitted to the Board of Directors if the Commission recommended approval of the change in use. He said that the Land Use Plan would show an "open space" designation on the north portion of the site, and that the designation would extend on to the west onto the abutting property. 11 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5412-B Commissioner Oleson said that the developer had done a lot in trying to buffer the use from the neighborhood; that they had gone to the extreme in buffering and landscaping. She related that she needed clarification on the signage and lighting issues. Mr. Hawkins, the developer, confirmed the presentation by Mr. Hathaway concerning the site lighting and signage. He also confirmed that the open space area could be donated to the property owners' association for a park. Mr. David Jones pleaded that Mrs. Cullum be allowed to sell her property and move on with her life since the death of her husband. He said that consultants can flavor their analysis in a way which best benefits the stance their clients are taking on an issue, and said that he had employed Ernie Peters in the past, and that Ernie Peters will say anything that he is paid to say. A motion to recommend approval of the PCD request seconded, and was passed with the vote of 7 ayes, absent, and 1 abstention. Commissioner McDaniel felt, due to a possible conflict of interest, he abstain. was made and 1 nay, 2 related that he needed to March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -5588 - NAME: THE OAKS OF CHENAL, LOTS B & G -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Chenal Parkway & east of Chenal Club Blvd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• DELTIC FARM AND TIMBER CO., INC. WHITE -DATER & ASSOCIATES, INC. #7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 821-5555 374-1666 AREA: 7.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 23 FT. NEW STREET: 1200 (private) ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Extension of the private street system previously approved. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an additional phase to a previously approved PRD. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the overall PRD proposal at the September 22, 1992 hearing. The Board of Directors established the PRD on October 20, 1992, in Ordinance 16,287. Phase I involved approval of Lot A containing 20 lots, and approval of the private boulevard street at the entrance to the addition, as well as the private loop street serving each of the proposed lots. The current application proposes approval of the development of Lots B and G, with the extension of the private street system to serve homes within these lots. The application is for approval of 23 additional homesites, with 1200 additional feet of private streets, and encompasses 7.5 acres. The development involves the creation of lots which average 65 feet by 130 feet, with homes ranging in size from 1800 square feet to 3000 square feet. Large "vistas", or open spaces are retained for visual and physical access of the lots to Chenal Valley Country Club. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of an amended PRD for The Oaks of Chenal. The request involves approval of an additional 23 building sites, or "sub -lots", March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5588-A for two additional larger lot phases of the overall development approved in 1992. The street system within the development is private. There is a divided boulevard at the entrance to the development serving as access to a loop street providing frontage for each of the larger lots. Loop, cul-de-sac, or "T" streets turn off of this loop street for access to each of the "sub -lots". Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for extension of the private street system. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Development of the subdivision is just beginning. Although approval of the initial phase took place in 1992, the entrance boulevard and first phase development has just been completed. No homes have been built at this time. The area proposed for this second phase is in its natural state with trees and vegetation. The topography is rolling, with about a 30 foot differential in elevation across the site, sloping downward from north to south. The existing zoning of the site is PRD. There is an MF -6 zoning district across Chenal Club Blvd. to the west; the remainder of the zoning in the area is R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the developer will have to comply with Section 31-402, Street Lighting Installation, for the development. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. An acreage charge of $300.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal charges. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension with easements will be required. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement along the southwest boundary of the property and access and utility easements along all drives. Landscaping review reports no comments. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-207, New Private Streets, of the Subdivision Regulations, requires that "private streets may be approved March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5588-A by the Planning Commission to service isolated developments... (and) are permissible only in the form of cull -de -sac and short loop streets...." The drawings need to be completed: properly dimension the lot lines; and, indicate the location of structures on each type of building lot and provide distances from proposed structures to lot lines. The Owner, Surveying, and Engineering Certifications will need to be executed. The Planning Staff reports that the development is in the Chenal District and the Plan recommends single-family uses. There is no land use issue. E. ANALYSIS• The use is a continuation of an existing development. The deficiencies noted in the submittal are minimal, and can be supplied by the engineer without difficulty. There are no substantiative issues to be resolved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval, subject to the plans being completed as indicated above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Joe White, representing the applicant's engineering firm, was present. Staff presented the request, and Mr. white indicated that he would complete the needed documentation. The Committee briefly discussed the issues, then forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the only remaining issues was for the engineer to designate buildable areas on representative lots, and recommended approval of the PCD subject to this being accomplished. The request was included in the Consent Agenda, and the Commission voted to recommend approval of the PCD to the Board of Directors with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5709 AME: BARROW MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Rd., approximately 300 feet south of Labette Dr. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• TOM KEMP & ASSOCIATES, INC. SAMUEL L. DAVIS 2323 N. Tyler St./P. 0. Box 7572 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. Little Rock, AR 72217 5301 W. 8th. St. 663-6600 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 4.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONIN : 0-3 & MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a mini -storage facility. Three phases are planned: the first phase to be built is to be east of the creek which traverses the site; the second, west of the creek and south of the "leg" which extends northward towards Labette Dr.; then, the third phase would be that portion of the tract which is north to Labette Dr. A total of 80,650 square feet of mini -storage building is proposed. The first phase entails the construction of 5 buildings totaling 34,400 square feet; the second, 5 buildings and 28,900 square feet; the third, 3 buildings and 17,350 square feet. The first phase is intended for immediate development, with the remaining phases to follow as the market demand dictates. The buildings are to be 12 feet tall, metal frame buildings with standing seam metal roofing; the exteriors are to be concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of the buildings. Concrete drives are proposed. A resident manager apartment and office totaling 1,200 square feet are to be attached to one of the buildings and constructed in the first phase of construction. The landscape areas will be provided, and lawns will be sodded; a lawn sprinkler system is proposed. Security lighting and fencing will be included. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5709 A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD for a mini -warehouse facility. The proposed development is to occur in three phases over a number of years, based on the market. Overall, the buildings are to occupy 81,850 square feet of the site, or 41% of the land area. Drives are to occupy another 41%. Landscaping, then, is 18% of the site. The buildings exteriors are concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of buildings. A resident manager and an office will occupy a portion of one of the buildings. The site will be fenced and lighted for security. Access to the project will be from 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M., 365 days per year. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. A creek runs across the site from north to south. The terrain is rolling, with a 25 foot differential in topography, rising from east to west. The existing zoning is 0-3 along the Barrow Rd. frontage and MF -12 for the west one-half of the site. The remainder of the MF -12 zone lies to the west and across Labette Dr. to the north. An R-2 site abuts the site to the south. A POD is immediately to the north of the tract. Across John Barrow Rd. to the east is an undeveloped 0-1 district. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. As part of the approval of the preliminary plat, and for a final plan and plat to be approved for Phase III, dedication of the required right-of-way and construction of Labette Dr. as required in the preliminary plat approval must be accomplished. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main relocation must be approved by Wastewater, and must be completed prior to any construction within the existing sewer main easement. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5709 Landscape review indicates that the buffer width along Barrow Rd. and the western perimeter should be 24 feet in width in order to meet the full requirement. The buffer widths along Labette Dr. and the southern perimeter should be an average width of 16 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen business activity from the residential properties to the south and west. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Significant deficiencies exist in the submittal: 1) the plans are incomplete and inaccurate in that they do not provide the engineering to substantiate the planned work to place the creek underground which traverses the site, and, from verbal information received from the developer, the plan is to build over the creek piping, yet an easement is reflected on the drawing; 2) the site plan is not based on the survey/preliminary plat which has been submitted as part of the preliminary plat submittal; 3) amended drawings subsequent to the Subdivision Committee review have not been submitted; 4) the required application information form has not been completed; 5) the project narrative does not address the type of lighting or signage; 6) a landscaping plan has not been submitted; and, 7) a legal description of the site has not been furnished. The Planning staff reports that the proposed development is in the I-430 District. The Land Use Plan reflects multi- family uses for the area, and there have been no changes to justify amendment to the Plan. The proposed use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. E. ANALYSIS• There are major deficiencies in the plans and documentation which have been submitted. There is inadequate landscaping and buffering from abutting residential districts. The anticipated use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed the deficiencies outlined in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for a determination on the appropriate course of action to take in view of the application being incomplete and the applicant not 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5709 attending the Committee meeting to receive the staff and Committee comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that neither the applicant nor his engineer had been present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but that the comments prepared for discussion at that meeting had been sent to the project engineer. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, has, staff reported, been in contact with the Planning and the City Engineering staff, and has amended the plans to conform to the requirements outlined for the Subdivision Committee meeting. Because the proposed use in conflict with the Land Use Plan, staff recommends denial of the application. Mr. Gene Eberle addressed the Commission, indicating that he was representing Tom and E. Ray Kemp, who are the developers of the proposed mini -storage facility. Mr. Eberle said that the tract is undeveloped; that up until 20 years ago, the tract had been used as a dairy farm, but since that time, the land had been lying idle. The developers request approval to develop a mini storage facility, and intend to develop an attractive facility which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The developers have previously built such mini -storage facilities as The Space Place, AAA Key Mini -Storage, and others. Mr. Eberle explained that there had been no apartment construction in the area in the past 10 years; that there is no market for multifamily development in the area; and that the mini -storage facility would be an asset to the neighborhood and benefit to the area homeowners and apartment dwellers who need the extra storage space. Mr. Eberle showed a series of photographs to the Commission members indicating the types of development in the area. He suggested that the proposed development would have more eye appeal than anything constructed in years, and would blend with the new medical rental facility being completed on the adjacent lot to the north. He reiterated that the development to the north is a commercial development, and that the mini -storage use would be of benefit to the residential uses in the area. Mr. Doug Holmstrom, representing the developer -builder, continued, saying that the proposed mini -storage facility would have eye appeal; that the construction is tilt -up concrete with stone impressions in the concrete to give the appearance of stone facing; and, that the site would be well landscaped. He reported that all deficiencies noted in the discussion outline for the Subdivision Committee had been met; that the site plan had been 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5709 amended to provide the required landscape buffers. He indicated that there might need to be an adjustment in the location of the front driveway for proper separation between their drive and the drive on the abutting property to the north, but that this adjustment would be made if needed. He reported that the proposed lighting is 175 watt mercury vapor lighting fixtures set at 13'-6" height and at 90 foot intervals. The only sign on the site is to be a back -lighted awing. He concluded that the proposed use of the property would produce no noise, very little traffic, be an asset to the area, and be a better use of the land than vacant property is. Commissioner Woods asked for clarification on the zoning district in which a mini -storage would normally be placed. Staff responded that a mini -storage use is a conditional use in C-3 zoning districts; and is a use by right in the C-4 district. Commissioner Woods commented that the use was inappropriate for the location. He observed that the other mini -storage facility further to the north, towards I-630, has located offices at the front of the facility, so that a passerby does not know that the warehouses are there. He concluded that John Barrow Rd. is a. mostly residential thoroughfare, and warehouses facing the road are not appropriate. Chairperson Chachere complained about the amount of traffic on John Barrow Rd., commenting that Parkview High School was a short distance to the south of the proposed mini -storage facility, and, as a result of existing traffic, there are many serious and fatal accidents in the area. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, related that there is a proposal to install a traffic signal at the intersection of John Barrow Rd. and Morris Manor Dr. which should help in the control of traffic. Ms. Chachere continued that she was concerned about any increase in traffic volume on John Barrow Rd. Mr. Henry responded that the traffic volumes on John Barrow are not to the volumes which would be expected on a 5 -lane arterial. He observed that the proposed development is 500 feet away from the Parkview High School access drives; that there is no sight distance problem at the proposed drive location; and, traffic leaving the proposed development can pull onto John Barrow Rd. without difficulty. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the mini -storage use would generate less traffic than either office or multi -family uses would generate. She added that a debate on the appropriateness 5 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5709 of the land use was legitimate, but that the proposed mini - storage use would not add to the traffic problem. Commissioner Woods reiterated that the warehouse use was inappropriate in the area which, he contends, would be in the middle of a residential area. Commissioner Walker responded that the mini -storage use provides an "extra closet" for residential uses, and is an appropriate accessory use in residential areas. Many people, he said, do not have the room in their home or a garage to store the "junk" they accumulate, and mini -storage facilities are amenities to residential neighborhoods if they are developed and buffered properly. The lighting needs to have the cut-off lenses to restrict the blead-over light from affecting abutting properties. He then asked about the status of the abutting properties; who will be affected by the proposed development? Mr. Holmstrom commented that the concrete tilt -up construction is more substantial than the metal building construction commonly used, and is not "banged -up" like the metal gets. He continued that the land to the south is vacant; to the north is a new medical rental office -warehouse facility; to the west there are some apartments. The land to the west, he said, slopes upward from the site, so the apartments are 20 feet above the mini - storage site. People in the apartments, at least on the second floor of the apartment building, would look down on the mini - storage facility. He indicated that the slope transition between the apartment site and the mini -storage site would be graded and planted in trees and bushes. Mr. Eberele added that the property immediately to the west is vacant and wooded, but that the property located at the southwest corner of the mini -storage tract is the property which has the apartment development located on it, and that the apartment complex is 2 blocks away and faces Morris Manor Dr. Commissioner Walker commented that mini -storage facilities which the Commission has previously approved, and which back up to residential areas, have single -loaded bays along the perimeter of the site so that the backs of the buildings form a buffer along the property line. Mr. Holmstrom responded that, in the proposed case, along the side property line, the buildings are single -loaded, but that along the rear, the ends of the buildings face the rear property line. He indicated, though, that the developers would consider making that change in the layout. Mr. Walker continued his comment that if the layout were re -done and there were a solid wall along the west property line, the 6 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5709 area between the wall and the property line could be heavily landscaped. This would be a preferable design. Mr. Holmstrom responded that the developer was interested in locating the buffer and fencing to provide the best benefit to the neighbors. Commissioner Woods returned to the land use question, and said that the mini -storage use is inappropriate; that the surrounding area is residential, and a C-4 use is inappropriate. Chairperson Oleson observed that the other mini -storage facility on John Barrow Rd. has the offices at the front of the project facing the road. She asked Commissioner Woods whether having the office use at the front of the project under consideration would make a difference to him. Mr. Woods responded that it would be preferable. Chairperson Oleson then called for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD application. The motion failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 7 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO • Z-5799 AME: COULSON OIL CO. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Highway 10, southeast of the Southridge Dr. intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• COULSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-4222 221-7880 AREA: 2.19 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Commercial The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a combined convenience store and restaurant use on the site. The concept involves the combination of a convenience store outlet with fuel sales and accompanying enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive-through service. This concept, explains the applicant, "is a relatively new idea that is appearing in other parts of the country"; that "the combined usage is logical because restaurants with drive-through service exist for the same reason of convenience as (does) the convenience store"; and, that "they both serve the demand for quickly accessible goods and service at 'convenient' locations to residents and passing traffic". The applicant proposes to own and operate both uses and will purchase a restaurant franchise for "name brand" food service. The location on Highway 10 was selected, explains the applicant, because it has good accessibility to present and future customers in a growing area, and it is adjacent to other existing and pending commercial developments. The proposed site, states the applicant, is large enough to accommodate the proposed development program and to provide substantial landscape space, building setback, and buffering. There is proposed to be a large area along the northern boundary that will be undisturbed and existing trees will be preserved. Additional trees will be f March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 planted in this area to create a lower canopy of trees to enhance the screening effect. A privacy fence is planned to be set along the limits of the site dividing the developed and undisturbed areas. The site is a 2.1887 acre tract consisting of two existing parcels which will be combined into a one -lot subdivision. A one-story, 6,000 square foot building will be occupied by the convenience store and the restaurant. The drive-through service for the restaurant will be located on the west face of the building. To the east of the convenience store, and separated by approximately 60 feet, is the fuel pump canopy which measures 47 feet by 84 feet. An enclosed, automated car wash is located east of the canopy and will serve convenience store customers following their fuel purchase. The main building and car wash are located 108 feet off Highway 10. The south edge of the fuel pump canopy is located 91 feet off the right-of-way. Building coverage is proposed to be 11.19% of the land area. Access to the site is proposed to be limited to one two-way curb cut on Highway 10 and one two-way curb cut on Southridge Dr. The Southridge Dr. access is intended to provide service to the site from the Walton Heights customers without forcing traffic around the site and onto Highway 10; and, it is located on Southridge in order for customers who wish to travel east on Highway 10 to have the benefit of the signal light at the Southridge Dr. -Highway 10 intersection in order to turn left. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD for the development of a 2.1887 acre site for a combined convenience store with fuel sales -restaurant with drive-through service -and automated car wash. The proposal involves construction of a 6,000 square foot building in which the restaurant and convenience store would be located; a 47 foot by 84 foot fuel pump canopy; a 20 foot by 36 foot automated car wash building; a drive-through service window and order board; parking for 49 vehicles; and access drives. The area abutting Southridge Dr. forms an undisturbed landscaped buffer area which ranges from a maximum width of 50 feet at the eastern edge of the site to 15 feet wide at the access drive onto Southridge Dr. A privacy fence is to be located at the perimeter of the undisturbed buffer to provide visual screening of the site from persons driving down Southridge Dr. from the north. The requirements of the Highway 10 Overlay are proposed to be met. Primary signage for the project will be located at the. Highway 10 entry and will adhere to the Design Overlay District guidelines. No variances or waivers are requested. 2 1 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5799 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently made up of two tracts which are to be combined. The site is vacant, except for a one story home located at the southeast corner of the property. There are many trees on the site, especially along the north property line. The site has a 40 foot elevation differential across it, with the low point being at the southwest corner of the site. Half of that differential occurs in the northwest 120 feet of the property. The current zoning is R-2. A Little Rock Fire Department Station is located immediately to the west in R-2 property. All the surrounding property north of Highway 10 is zoned R-2. South of Highway 10 is R-2 and 0-3 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a sidewalk will be required to be constructed along Highway 10 and along the Southridge Dr. frontage of the site. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that the details of the water main relocation will need to be more specific, and the layout will vary from that shown. The water main will need to be laid outside of the highway right-of-way and Water Works will need a 10 foot wide easement adjoining the back side of the 20 foot permanent construction easement for construction of this main. Wastewater indicated that sewer is available. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance required additional screening and trees along Highway 10 above those required by the Landscape Ordinance. A lawn sprinkler system to water the plants will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: All required exhibits and information have been submitted. There are no issues remaining as far as the needed plans and information to meet the requirements for PCD submittals. 3 .. F March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5799 The Planning staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain District, and the Land Use Plan recommends Transition Zone for the area. There have been no changes to justify amending the Plan to allow commercial uses. E. ANALYSIS• The site planning has attempted to deal with the need to provide landscape buffering of the proposed use from the residential area beyond, especially to the north in Walton Heights. A large natural and landscape buffer is proposed along Southridge Dr. The fence, retaining wall, and existing and proposed trees are said to provide a canopy of trees which are to enhance the screening effect. The matter of site lighting has not been addressed. Buffering of the sound from the order board/intercom must be adequately addressed; fire fighters live and sleep in the fire station immediately to the west. The proposed use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan, and there is not sufficient justification to amend the Plan to allow commercial use of the site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Robert Brown, representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented an overview of the proposal and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown the items contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown responded that he would made the needed corrections or provide the additional information requested. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated March 4, 1994, asking that the item be deferred to the April 5, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the April 5 meeting, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 1 absent, and no abstentions. 4 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO • Z-5800 NAME: BOWMAN COMMERCIAL PART -- LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.2 miles south of Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: BOWMAN COMMERCIAL PARK TERRY BURRUSS, ARCHITECTS C/o MAX R. DAVIS 1202 S. Main St., Suite 204 6700 Allied Way Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72209 376-3676 562-2544 AREA: 10.102 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 Z NING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Office - Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to construct an office/service center complex consisting of four buildings, three of the buildings having 28,800 square feet of floor area and one having 24,000 square feet, for a total building square footage of 110,400. Parking for 250 vehicles is proposed. The buildings would have a lot coverage of 25% of the land area. Parking and drives would occupy another 47%. Landscaping and open space, then, will occupy the remaining 28% of the land area. A 140 foot front setback off of Bowman Rd. is proposed, and 45 to 50 large trees are to be preserved to ensure a park -like entry to the complex. The remainder of the landscape areas are to be planted with dense evergreen plantings. The buildings are proposed to be 26 feet tall, and have an exterior finish of split -face block with stucco accents. Office entries will be recessed into the facade. Service areas for the buildings are in service courts which are screened with landscaping and an 8 foot tall by 15 foot long wall. The applicant proposes to occupy the front/western-most building for his own business, Davis Moving and Storage Co., and to lease the remaining buildings to tenants which have need of an office warehouse type facility. The applicant's building is anticipated to be the first phase and would be constructed in the fall of 1994. Subsequent buildings would be built in later phases as tenants are secured. The proposed hours of operation for March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) __ FILE NO.: Z-5800 businesses to occupy the facility are 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The proposed signage is one monument sign for the complex name with a height of 8 feet and a maximum size of 160 square feet; building signage consists of individual letter mounted to the building facade for each tenant space, with 24 square feet per sign of maximum area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD in order to construct an office warehouse facility. The "office/service center" which is proposed consists of 4 buildings totaling 110,400 square feet on 10.102 acres. Parking for 250 vehicles is planned. A front setback off Bowman Rd. of 140 feet and the retention of many of the existing large trees is planned to ensure a "park -like entry to the complex". Service areas for each of the buildings are in service courts and are screened from view with landscaping and a wall. Dense evergreen plantings will be planted throughout the property. Individual buildings are to have facades of split -face concrete block; the building height is 28 feet. Entries are to be recessed into the facade. Tenant business names are to be identified with signs which consist of individual letter mounted on the building. One complex monument sign is proposed at the entry. No waivers or variances are requested B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a 10.102 acre site containing two homes and a 1 - acre man-made pond. The front/west portion of the site has many large trees; the eastern -most portion of the site, east of the pond, is heavily wooded and in its natural state. The pond is to be drained and leveled.) The topography is rolling, with a rise across the site from west to east of 45 feet. Existing zoning of the site is R-2. R-2 property lies immediately to the west across Bowman Rd. To the north is R-2 and MF -18 property; a skating rink is a non -conforming use in the R-2 property along Bowman Rd. immediately to the north of the site. To the south is a large undeveloped MF - 12 site; to the south-east and east is a large undeveloped 0-3 site which is part of the Koger Center property fronting on Centerview Dr. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that Master Street Plan improvements on Bowman Rd. and dedication of the required right-of-way will be required. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5800 Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main is located on the property. No permanent structures can be built over that existing sewer easement. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat without comment. Landscape review indicates that the buffer width along Bowman Rd. is required to have an average minimum width of 27 feet, and along the eastern perimeter to have an average width of 33 feet. The full buffer requirements, without transfers, are 40 feet and 50 feet respectively. A 6 foot high opaque "good neighbor" wood fence or dense evergreen plantings will be required to screen this use from the residential properties to the north and south. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: All required information and documents have been submitted. There are no remaining deficiencies. The appropriate land use designation for the proposed site would be mixed office and warehouse. Planning staff has concerns about the loss of residential uses in the area, since there are abundant areas shown on the plan for commercial, office and transition zone uses. In addition, recent zoning actions have created localized traffic problems to the north. Therefore, land use decisions along the Kanis and Bowman corridors must be carefully reviewed so as not to further compound the problem. If the Commission wishes to change this area to nonresidential use, a plan amendment to allow such a change will be presented to the Board of Directors. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant maintains that under the current zoning, MF -18, the site could be developed with 180 multifamily dwelling units and the total square footage could be approximately 144,000 square feet. The lot coverage ratio could be, then, 33% of the land area. Traffic would be significantly grater than it would be with the proposed development. 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5800 Staff concerns include: 1) The ratio of office to warehouse space is not specified, and this needs to be delineated on the plan; 2) The means of buffering the site from adjacent residential and office uses needs to be "fleshed -out" and specified; 3) The open space at the front of the property needs to have further clarification noted which makes the maintenance of the "park -like" look a permanent feature; 4) The means taken to make the use blend with the surrounding uses need to be addressed, and the color of the exterior walls and roofing material need to be specified; and, 5) The site lighting needs to be appropriate and specified. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Max Davis; a representative from Barns, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Ms. Melanie Gibson; and the architect, Mr. Terry Burruss, were present. Staff presented the proposal and reviewed with the applicant and his representatives the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Burruss indicated that the needed information and documents would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item and pointed out that the staff recommendation had inadvertently been omitted from the printed agenda; that the staff recommendation was for approval of the POD with the stipulation that each of the office -warehouse buildings is to have a minimum of 25% of the floor area dedicated to office use. Mr. Max Davis, the applicant, presented the proposal, and indicated that the front 150 feet of the property along Bowman Rd. was to be left in its natural state to be a park -like area, with large landscape buffers also being provided along the two sides and along the rear of the property. He stated that he wanted to be a good neighbor. Commissioner Oleson questioned Mr. Davis about the two objectors who had left, asking if he had had a chance to talk with them and determine their concerns. Mr. Davis reported that one person who had indicated an objection had left and that he was unable to talk with her; the other, after seeing the plans and seeing the photograph of the area that 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.. 14 _ (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5800 would be left as a park/buffer along Bowman Rd. had indicated that her concerns had been put at ease. Mr. Davis indicated that the office -warehouse center would be upscale buildings, catering to upscale clients, and would fit into the neighborhood. Staff reiterated that each of the office -warehouse buildings is to have a minimum of 25% of the floor area devoted to office use. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification that the office use would be along the front of each building, and that service areas would be at the rear of the buildings. Mr. Davis responded that the front of each building would look like an office building, and that service courts would be at the rear and would be screened with masonry walls and landscaping. The buildings would be equal in height to 2 -story buildings, but the storefront would be limited to the first floor. The buildings would be very similar in appearance to the Mega -Market building on W. Markham St. Mr. Davis outlined some of the types of clients he would be recruiting for the center, including service -type businesses. Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, indicated that a Land Use Plan amendment would be required, and that one would be forwarded to the Board of Directors if the Commission recommended approval of the POD. He explained that the plan amendment would reflect a change in the land use from low density multi -family to mixed office -warehouse. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD and of the land use designation. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 67 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO • Z-5801 AME: MEDICAL ELECTRONICS, INC. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Lawson Rd., approximately 0.6 miles west of Colonel Glenn Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• PATRICK H. MORRIS J. RANDALL MEDICAL ELECTRONICS, INC. 18700 Vimy 13311A Lawson Rd. Alexander, Little Rock, AR 72210 847-2665 225-8077 AREA: 1.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 MANNES, P.E., P.L.S. Ridge Rd. AR 72002 FT. NEW STREET• 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the requirement to provide Master Street Plan improvements along the Lawson Rd. frontage. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to expand an existing non- conforming use. The applicant, Medical Electronics, Inc., leases space to Hospital Equipment Engineering Services and to Champion Builders, Inc., They occupy a 30 foot by 60 foot, 1,800 square foot building. Hospital Equipment Engineering Services employs 3 persons, and maintains office space and a laboratory for the repair of medical equipment. The laboratory has one technician and does not create a noise or environmental hazard. Champion Builders maintains general offices for their construction operation. A small, 15 foot by 15 foot accessory building is used for storage of small items, and, occasionally, a construction trailer is parked on the site pending its relocation to a construction site. Champion Builders does not maintain a material yard on the site. The two occupants have outgrown their present facilities, and propose to construct a second duplicate building immediately behind the existing building. Champion Builders would expand to occupy the existing building; Medical Electronics would occupy the new building. A drive would be extended from the existing parking lot to the new parking area to be constructed. Sewer disposal for the existing facility is by way of a septic tank. An additional septic tank is proposed for the new building. Existing mature hedges are in place along the east and west March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5801 property lines, and these are sufficient, the applicant states, to provide the required landscape screening. The applicant proposes. to dedicate the required right-of-way along the Lawson Rd. frontage, but asks for a waiver from the requirement to construct the Master Street Plan improvements. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for Medical Electronics, Inc. The applicant requests approval to construct an second office building on the site, immediately south of the existing building, and to expand the present two uses. Champion Builders, who occupies one-half of the existing building, is proposed to expand into the entire building. Hospital Equipment Engineering Services, who occupies the remaining one-half of the existing building, is proposed to relocate to the new building. The new building will entail the construction of a second parking area and the construction of an additional septic tank. The existing 15 foot by 15 foot storage building on the site is to remain. Dedication of the required right-of-way for Lawson Rd. is provided; however, a waiver from the Master Street Plan improvements is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is outside the Little Rock City Limits, but is inside the City's Planning Boundary. The setting is rural, with scattered homes on large tracts. The most prominent characteristic of the area is that it is a farming area. There is, however, a church building located on the property immediately to the east of the proposed PCD site. The site is currently occupied by an office building, which is a non -conforming use in a residential area. The land is level and cleared. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The land to the east, south, and west is zoned R-2. Immediately across Lawson Rd. to the north is a large AF area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of additional right-of-way along the Lawson Rd. frontage, and will require construction of Master Street Plan improvements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. water works has no comments. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5801 Wastewater reports that the site is outside the service boundary of the utility. Arkansas Power & Light Co., and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement along the west, south, and east property lines. Landscape review reports that the site will be required to be screened from the residential properties to the south, east, and west. The screen may be a 6 foot high "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. Existing and proposed vehicular use areas will have to comply with the Landscape Ordinance. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: In response to the Subdivision Committee comments, the applicant has submitted all required exhibits except for the landscape plan. The applicant states that the existing hedges on the east and west property lines will provide the required screening device. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the Crystal Valley District. The Land Use Plan recommends single family development of the area. There have been no changes to justify amending the Plan to permit commercial uses in the area. E. ANALYSIS• The remaining items which are required for a complete PCD application are minimal. The landscape plan and meeting the requirement for parking lot landscaping are the major item remaining to be submitted. There are, therefore, only minor and easily corrected deficiencies at the time of this writing. The Land Use Plan recommends the property uses for the area to be single-family residential. The proposed use is in conflict with the Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5801 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Pat Morris, and the project engineer, Mr. Randy Mannes, were present. Staff outlined the request, and the Committee reviewed the discussion outline comments with the applicant and engineer. Mr. Manns responded that all required documents and information would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item and indicated that the applicant had requested a waiver from the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements along the Lawson Rd. frontage of the property. Mr. Randy Mannes, the engineer for the project, addressed the Commission. He introduced Mr. Pat Morris as the applicant and owner of Medical Electronics, Inc. Mr. Mannes outlined the proposal, indicating that Mr. Morris owns the 1.8 acre tract, which he purchased in 1981. The tract, when purchased, contained the building as it now stands, with the building having been constructed in the late 701s. Mr. Morris occupies one-half of the building with his medical electronics service business. Champion Builders occupies the other one-half with its construction company office. Mr. Morris is requesting, he continued, to duplicate the size and style of the existing building in a new building to be build directly behind the present facility. Mr. Morris would occupy the new building; Champion Builders would occupy the entire existing building. There would be, then, no change in use of the property. Mr. Mannes presented the Commission a series of photography of the area showing the church next door, the 2 cabinet shops within a few hundred feet, the electrical construction business in the area, the automobile repair/body shop within a few hundred feet, the upholstery shop almost directly across the street, as well as of the applicant's site. He mentioned that a new church had recently been approved for the area. He stated that, within one mile of the applicant's business, there are 2 churches and 8 businesses. The area is zoned R-2, yet there are 10 non- residential uses already in existence. Mr. Mannes explained that Mr. Morris services electronic equipment, and that, primarily, the the various hospitals and clinics. 4 hospital and clinic work is done at March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: z-5801 Mr. Manns asserted that the addition of the new building to the site would have no effect on the Lawson Rd. area. The same 2 businesses would be on the site. The two businesses are quiet office uses. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for clarification of the recommendation for denial. Ron Newman, of the Planning staff, responded that the Land Use Plan shows the area to be for single-family use. He explained that when the extraterritorial study was done a few years back, staff found many good, legitimate businesses in the area, but that they are scattered; that there is no pattern to their location. From a planning standpoint, the location of commercial uses should be clustered at major road intersections. In the Crystal Valley district, clustered businesses were found along Crystal Valley Rd., but, along Lawson Rd., the businesses are scattered. There is a category called "existing business node" designation, which requires a cluster of at least 3 commercial uses, but the business along Lawson Rd. do not meet this criteria. There is, then, no mechanism for dealing with the businesses in the area; therefore, staff recommended denial of the zoning request. Commissioner McDonald indicated that he is generally supportive of requests to allow non -conforming uses in the extraterritorial areas to continue, but that his support is normally for owners of businesses caught in the non -conforming situation. He questioned Mr. Mannes and Mr. Morris regarding Mr. Morris having a tenant who shares the building, saying that if Mr. Morris did not have a tenant, there would be no need to build another building. Mr. Mannes explained that Champion Builders had been a long-term tenant, in fact, had been a tenant since Mr. Morris had bought the property. Mr. Morris explained that his business is growing, and that the added space he needs is primarily for additional manuals. Commissioner McDonald pointed out that J. A. Fair High School which is within the area of the applicant's business, and is another non-residential use. Commissioner Willis asked the applicant whether he would expect to outgrow the new building. Mr. Mannes responded that it had taken 13 years to need to expand, and that he would be doubling his available space with the construction of the new building. A March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5801 Commissioner Nicholson indicated that she is familiar with Mr. Morris' business, and had been to his office on several occasions. She indicated that it was really an office use, and asked why it was not considered for a POD designation in lieu of a PCD designation. Staff responded that the Champion Builders narrative had included a statement that construction site office trailers and trucks or equipment are sometimes stored on the site; therefore, the PCD designation was chosen. Commissioner Nicholson indicated that she has a struggle with the imposition of strict requirements on businesses in the extraterritorial area; that if we vote to deny the use, we force the businesses out. Addressing the applicant, however, she indicated that she was not supportive of the request for a total waiver of the street improvements along Lawson Rd. Maybe, she continued, the applicant should put up an "in -lieu" contribution for the costs of improvements which would be made at some later date. Staff responded that an "in -lieu" contribution is not appropriate in a situation such as the applicant's. Where there is no planned improvement project, the City does not take "in -lieu" payments. A deferral for a certain number of years, on the other hand, is the way deferrals are normally handled. Commissioner Nicholson replied that since the Lawson Rd. area is rural, in 3 or 5 years, it may not be appropriate to have the applicant build a 4 or 5 lane roadway for the 167 foot frontage of his property. The requirement to construct the street should be tied to whether development has caught up with a need for such a street in the area. Staff reported that the Board of Directors, in its recent approval of the church in the area, had approved a 5 -year deferral of the street improvements. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles added that there is nothing to prohibit the applicant from seeking an additional deferral in 5 years, if the development is still sparse and there is no justification for requiring the improvements at that time. The applicant was asked if he would agree to an amendment of his request to substitute a deferral for the requested waiver. The applicant indicated that he would request a 5 -year deferral of the street improvements requirement. 6 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5801 A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the PCD and of the 5 -year deferral of the street improvements. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and no abstentions. Mr. Newman reported that, since staff had recommended denial of the request, no Land use Plan amendment had been prepared. He indicated that staff did not know how to handle the situation, since it would be inappropriate to show a commercial node in an area that does not meet the requirements for such a designation. Commissioner Walker said that he had always maintained that it is not "spot zoning" when the Commission finds that there is justification for the use, as is the case in the applicant's situation. Mr. Newman said that staff would determine an appropriate means of dealing with the situation, and indicated that further thought and discussion needs to be had on how to handle these types of situation. 7 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO • Z-5803 NAME: DICK LAYTON BUICK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham Street, west to Atkins Road DEVELOPER: ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LITTLE ROCK C/o Dickson Flake 1200 First Commercial Building P. 0. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-6161 ENGINEER• Robert Brown DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72205 221-72205 AREA: 3.31 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: Auto Display, Sales & Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD for the development of the Dick Layton Buick automobile display, sales, and service business. The proposal involves development of a 3.31 acres site which is currently zoned C-2, Shopping Center District. The proposed development site is Lot 1 of a preliminary plat being considered for approval as another item on the agenda. The PCD application proposes construction of a 19,340 square foot building to house the show room, offices and administration area, service area, and part area; and a 2,440 square foot sales office building. The proposed building coverage is 15.11% of the land area. Parking for 269 vehicles is planned, with a great majority of these being for display of vehicles. The main sales -service building is an inverted "V" shaped building, and the two end points are proposed to be located 33.1 feet from the south property line. Proposed signage is: a primary sign to be a pole mounted sign no greater than the standard sign regulations for free-standing commercial signs (i.e., 36 feet in height and 160 square feet of area); a monument sign which will conform to the standards set March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 forth in the Design Overlay District for Chenal Parkway (i.e., 8 feet maximum in height and 100 square feet of area). No additional right-of-way dedication is proposed along Chenal Parkway. Construction of an additional traffic lane for Chenal Parkway is not proposed; however construction of a deceleration lane on Chenal Parkway to the entry drive off Chenal Parkway and the required sidewalk will be built. Master Street Plan improvements on W. Markham St. and on Atkins Rd. will be constructed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for Dick Layton Buick. The applicant proposes a PCD for the display, sales, and service of automobiles. The project involves construction of a 19,340 square foot showroom - office and administration -service -parts building, and a 2,400 sales office building. Parking for 269 vehicles is proposed. Drive entrances off Chenal Parkway, W. Markham St. and Atkins Road are requested. The drive off Chenal Parkway is a right turn only commercial entry. A decelerating lane from the W. Markham St. intersection to this entry off Chenal Parkway will be constructed. Master Street Plan improvements involving construction of one-half of W. Markham St. from the existing improvements which meet standards westward to Atkins Rd. are proposed. Master Street Plan improvements involving construction of one-half of Atkins Rd. are proposed. Sidewalks will be constructed along all three street frontages. The proposed signage is in conformance with the Regulations; no variance from these Regulations is anticipated. Waivers from the requirement to provide additional right-of-way along Chenal Parkway and construction of a full additional traffic lane are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The site has about a 16 foot difference in topography across it, with the low point being at the northeast corner of the tract. The existing zoning of the site is C-2. There is an existing C-2 zoning district along the south property line. Property to the north and east is zoned C-3; to the west is zoned 0-3. E March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Chenal Parkway and the construction of an additional traffic lane. Master Street Plan improvements must be constructed along W. Markham St. and on Atkins Rd. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. Water Works reports that the on-site line will be a private fire service line. The main in W. Markham St. is a 20" main. Water Work recommends the installation of a main on the westerly side of Chenal Parkway across this property. The fire service could be taken off of this main. A main would be in place across this property to serve the property to the south. It appears that an extension at that point eliminates the need for a main crossing W. Markham St. Wastewater reports that the sewer easement shown must match the location of the existing 10" sewer main shown on the plat. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the average full buffer width required along Chenal Parkway is 34 feet. The minimum average requirement with transfers is 23 feet. Some of the proposed areas for car display from the property line along W. Markham St. is less than the 20 foot setback required in the areas zoned for outdoor display. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: An issue has not been addressed concerning any proposed public address system to be installed on the site. With the proximity of residential and office uses, amplified sound could be a nuisance. All deficiencies have been addressed and all information requested at the Subdivision Committee meeting have been provided. There are no outstanding issues to be resolved except for the matter of a public address system. The Planning staff reports that the site is in the Ellis Mountain District, and the Land Use Plan recommends commercial use for the site. Another C-4, Open Display 3 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE N Z-5803 District, use on Chenal Parkway will have a significant impact on the area in terms of signage, traffic, etc. E. ANALYSIS• The existing zoning of the site is C-2, Shopping Center District. Uses such as churches; eating places with and without drive-in service; hardware or sporting goods stores; home centers; hotels or motels; lawn and garden centers; a private club with dining or bar service; a business school; a service station; theaters; etc. are allowed by right in this zoning district. An automobile display, sales, and service use is allowed as a conditional use in the C-2 district. An automobile display, sales, and service business is not anticipated to have any more, and will have probably less, impact than many of these uses by right in the district could be anticipated to have. The applicant proposes a "well landscaped" project, and it promises to be an asset to the area. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD, subject to an agreeable solution to the potential problem with a public address system. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Representatives of the applicant and the engineer were present. Mr. Dickson Flake, representing the owner; Mr. Dick Layton, the developer; representatives of General Motors; and Mr. Robert Brown, the engineer, were present. Staff presented the request. The Committee members reviewed with the applicant and the engineer the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown responded that the items mentioned either had already been remedied, or that the needed corrections or submittals would be forthcoming. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Chairperson Chachere explained that Item 2 (Chenal Business Addition Preliminary Plat), Item 16 (Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD), and Item 25 (the rezoning of a portion of the proposed Chenal Business Addition from 0-3 to C-2) would be discussed together, but then would be voted on individually. 4 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 Staff presented the various requests and reported that Ruth Bell, representing the League of women Voters, had delivered a statement to staff outlining the League's concerns which she feels need to be addressed, and staff reported that a copy of the statement from Ms. Bell was at each Commissioners desk. David Jones, with Vogle Realty, introduced himself, and indicated that he was representing the interests of Dick Layton Buick in the hearing. He related that Dick Layton Buick had tried to make sure that the development was as sensitive as possible to the neighborhoods in the area; that, therefore, the deed restrictions imposed on the sale of the property will contain provisions which will prohibit: an adult book or adult video store; a night club or place of recreation or amusement; a car wash, except as an incidental use associated with the auto dealership; and, any business serving alcoholic beverages, except as an incidental use to a restaurant use. He explained that he and others involved in the project had met with the neighbors, that 12-15 had showed up and the meeting had lasted about 2 hours; and, that, as a result, the developer was prepared to make the following concessions: there would be no body shop constructed as part of the development; there would be no outdoor paging of employees; there would be no off-site parking of vehicles; there would be no off-street loading of vehicles being delivered; there would be no circus tents, flashing lights, search lights, pendents, or carnival -type promotions; test drive routs will be defined and will not run through the Timber Ridge neighborhood, and customers will be accompanied by sales representatives during test drives; and, site lighting will be directional and controlled to light only the site, and site lighting will be reduced after hours by two-thirds. Mr. Jones concluded with the statement that Dick Layton, at the meeting with neighbors, had committed to assist the Timber Ridge and Point West neighborhoods in the development of a neighborhood park. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, the project engineer, presented the development scheme to the Commission. He reviewed with Commissioners the site plan, landscaping plan, the location of the various proposed activities, and the rendering showing the view of the project from the front. Mr. Jones added that the Dick Layton Buick and the rezoning issues are contractually interrelated, and one cannot proceed without the other. Dick Layton promised that he would not return to the Commission at a late time with requests for tents or banners. He reiterated that there would be no outside paging, and that the alarm system is a silent alarm, not an audible alarm. He explained that the University Ave. location will be retained and will be used for a storage lot for overflow vehicle storage from the new lot. 5 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 Dickson Flake, representing the Catholic Diocese, explained that the Diocese had concerns in concluding the sale to Dick Layton Buick that the remaining C-2 land available could not be developed; that the remaining tract of C-2 land was too narrow and development would be difficult. The 0-3 area, on the other hand, was a large area. There was a need, then, to increase the C-2 area for development of that area to be workable. The change of a portion of the 0-3 area to C-2 would leave a 5 acre tract zoned 0-3, and would be 200 feet in depth along the Timber Ridge neighborhood. The advantage of the change to the Diocese would be that there would be adequate C-2 area to be marketable. The advantage to the neighborhood would be that the 0-3 area would be too small for a high rise development, necessitating a smaller office development scheme of no more than two -store office buildings. This would provide a good buffer along the neighborhood's boundary. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Flake if the Diocese would commit to that restriction of no more than two story office buildings. Mr. Flake responded that the Diocese would make that commitment. Mary Douglas introduced herself as a representative of the Timber Ridge, Gibralter Heights, and Point west subdivisions, and indicated that she had a prepared statement to read, which she then read. She related that she also had a map which shows the intensity of the commercial development in the area of the three neighborhoods, and explained that there was too much development making it too congested; that the area would not be a pleasant place to live in the future is development continued. She then asked that the item be deferred to give the neighborhood time to do further study on the effects of the proposed development on the neighborhoods. Mr. Jones responded that the site is already composed of 8 acres of C-2 land which would allow a major development to be constructed without rezoning. In such a case, traffic would be a great deal greater than it would with the current proposal. Dick Layton Buick would generate 60-70 vehicles per day; therefor, on 3 acres of the tract, traffic would be substantially decreased from what might be expected from C-2 zoned land. He said that the developer had met all requirements to notify the neighbors and to meet with them, and the developer does not want to delay the matter. The developer does not want another consultant brought in by the neighborhood "second-guessing" the design and choices already made. Commissioner Putnam, addressing Ms. Douglas, related that the area is currently zoned C-2, and there are about 100 uses that could go into the area without review or the property owners being notified or consulted. 6 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles advised the applicant and neighbors that there is approximately a month between the Commission hearing and the Board of Directors meeting, and that during this interim, further discussion could take place. Mr. Jones related that, if the item were recommended for approval, that, indeed, further discussion could continue, and that a meeting with the neighborhood and their consultant, George Wittenberg, could be held. Ms. Douglas indicted that she felt that there were questions remaining which needed clarification. Commissioner Nicholson responded that all the issues had been resolved and "signed -off" on by staff. Ms. Nicholson, addressing Ms. Douglas, said that the neighborhood was not sure that they were for or against the development, and that she would not support a request by the neighborhood for a deferral without specific reasons. She advised Ms. Douglas to meet with Mr. Wittenberg and develop specific requests which might be points of discussion with the developer, then to bring these to the developer for a response. Any further concessions or agreements could be addressed at the Board of Directors meeting. Ms. Nicholson then asked Ms. Douglas for a clarification as to who the letter which Ms. Douglas had read was from. Ms. Douglas explained that there was no neighborhood association; that the letter was from the group of residents who had been meeting and discussing the situation. Christi Phelps addressed the Commission. She said that the neighborhood has a good "confidence level,, regarding the Dick Layton Buick proposal, but that they do not have a good "confidence level" regarding the rezoning issue. Relating to the rezoning issue, the neighborhood requests: a 150 foot deep open space strip abutting the Timber Ridge neighborhood; that there be permitted no access to Atkins Rd.; that a study be conducted to determine the effect of the change in zoning on the surrounding neighborhoods; and, a requirement be imposed which will provide for site plan review on any development in the rezoned area. Relating to the Dick Layton Buick, Ms. Phelps continued: that there be no access to Atkins Rd.; that there be no pole signs allowed; that parking for employees be restricted to on-site; that there be no unloading of the transport trucks from Atkins Rd., W. Markham St., or Chenal Parkway; that the alarm system be a silent alarm; that the dumpster be in an enclosure and that servicing be restricted to weekdays only and only after 8:30 A.M.; that there be no test driving allowed on Atkins Rd. or in the surrounding neighborhoods; that the dealership be closed on Sundays; that there be no promotional activities allowed; that 7 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 there be no expansion of the dealership allowed onto adjacent property; that if the dealership were vacated, that notification and review by the neighborhoods be required; that lighting be controlled and directional; and that landscaping be with evergreen trees and scrubs. Mr. Layton responded that, in the years he had been in business, he had never been open on Sundays, but that he could not commit to such a restriction. Mr. Jones responded that most of the items had already been agreed to; others could not be agreed to, such as the restriction on the expansion of the dealership. Robert Brown discussed the location of the proposed signs, saying that the one sign along Chenal Parkway would conform to the "Design Overlay District" requirements, but that the sign which lies 300 feet to the west of Chenal Parkway on W. Markham St. would be a standard commercial sign. He explained that since the sign is over 300 feet from Chenal Parkway, that it was not proposed to conform to the "DOD" restrictions. Mr. Jones, returning to the discussion of the proposed rezoning, added that the request is for C-2 zoning, and that site plan review is required; therefore, the neighbors would have a chance to participate in site plan review hearings when the development continues. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Flake to comment further on the interrelatedness of the proposals. Mr. Flake explained that the approval of one request without the other would not permit the Dick Layton Buick proposal to continue. The Diocese could not conclude the sale without assurance that the remaining tract is marketable. Mr. Flake, continuing, said that, as well as restricting the development in the 0-3 area to 2 floors in height, he would also make the concession to provide for site plan review of the development within the 0-3 area. Art Kelly, saying that he was a resident of the Timber Ridge neighborhood, indicated that he supported the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #2, the preliminary plat for Chenal Business Addition. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #16, the Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 8 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5803 A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #25, the rezoning of a portion of the tact from 0-3 to C-2. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 9 March 22, 1994 I ITEM NO • 17 FILE NO.• Z-5806 NAME: PERKINS SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.5 miles north of W. 36th. St. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• ST. CHARLES HEALTH CARE CENTERS MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 160 Towson 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Little Rock, AR 72211 783-5191 223-9900 AREA: 5.0 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Nursing Home Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted plans representing a proposal for development of a nursing home facility, and requesting a PCD in order to accomplish the objective. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for establishment of a PCD in order to develop a nursing home facility on the site. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain is rolling, with the center of the site being about 20 feet lower than the northeast corner and the southwest corner of the property. The existing zoning is R-2, with R-2 zoning being the only zoning in the area. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5806 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way along and to construct Master Street Plan improvements on Bowman Rd. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution analysis is required. Contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power & Light Co., Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan without comment. The Fire Department requests that the drive through/drop-off lane be a minimum of 18 feet in width. Landscape review reports that a 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen the site from the residential properties to the north, south, and east. The screen can be a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittals to date are deficient: 1) No project narrative has been submitted; therefore, staff cannot complete the review process and cannot present the applicants proposal and request; 2) The landscaping plan has not been furnished for review; 3) The preliminary plat information is incomplete; and, 4) The preliminary Bill of Assurance has not been submitted. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan recommends low density multi -family uses in the area. The Planning staff believes that a nursing home can meet the intent of low density multi -family residential use intended. E. ANALYSIS• Staff is unable to present a complete proposal and request on behalf of the applicant without the project narrative. The narrative establishes the parameters within which the review is performed and the approval is considered. Without the narrative, the character of the proposed development cannot be reviewed and the requirements for the PCD cannot E March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 17 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5806 be set. Long-term enforcement of requirements of the PCD would not be possible, since no description of the character of the proposed development exist. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the request until the required submittals are presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) A representative of the applicant and Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the plan and outlined the request. The Committee reviewed with Mr. McGetrick the comments cited in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would make the needed changes. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated March 21, 1994, seeking a deferral of the hearing of the request to the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The request was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, no noes, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. Staff reported that the Commission Bylaws require the applicant to request a deferral at least five (5) days prior to the Hearing, and that a waiver of the Bylaws requirement needed to be approved. The waiver passed with the vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO S 357 A NAME: INDEPENDENCE SQUARE, PHASE III -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of Woodland Heights Rd., approximately 0.1 mile west of Rodney Parham Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: WARREN STEPHENSON PAT MCGETRICK #68 Robinwood Dr. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING Little Rock, AR 72207 11225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 224-0115 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: - NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Offices The applicant proposes a Phase III development to the existing site to entail the construction of a 2 -story, 23,290 square foot office building and the addition of 60 parking spaces. Phases I and II are situated on the eastern portion of the site; Phase III is sited to the west with access to the new parking lot proposed to be gained off of Woodland Heights Rd. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site Plan review for the construction of the Phase III improvements to the Independence Square office complex. The proposal involves the addition of a third office building to the site and the addition of parking facilities. The building is to be a 2 -story, 23,290 square foot building; parking for 60 vehicles is proposed. Construction of the required sidewalk along Woodland Heights Rd. is proposed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Phases I and II are existing on the site. These buildings are located on the Rodney Parham Rd. side of the property. The proposed location of the Phase III building and parking is on the west side of the property off Woodland Heights Rd. The terrain is level ground. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Continued) FILE NO S 357 A C. IM E. F. The existing zoning is 0-3. Christ the King Catholic Church is located immediately to the north of Independence Square in an R-2 zoning district. Across Woodland Heights Rd. to the west is 0-3 and R-2 property. Across Rodney Parham Rd. to the east is Systematics in a large 0-2 zoning district. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that a sidewalk along Woodland Heights Rd. will be required. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works indicates that the Fire Department will probably r equire an additional fire hydrant be installed in conjunction with this phase. The installation of this hydrant will be by water Works at Water Works expense; however, this work needs to be coordinated with the development contractor. Wastewater indicates that sewer is available. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the average full buffer width required along Woodland Heights Rd. is 20 feet. The minimum average requirement is 13 feet. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The remaining issue to be resolved is the presentation by the applicant's engineer of a revised and completed site plan in response to the discussion conducted at the Subdivision Committee. Minimal deficiencies existed in the documentation and information required to be presented on the plan. Some site re -design was to be required to accommodate the landscaping requirements. ANALYSIS• The originally conceived schematic plan for the site included a third building. The plan has changed in that the current proposal is for a 2 -story building with a larger "footprint" than the originally conceived 3 -story building. There are no significant problems; the revised plan needs to be submitted. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-357-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Pat McGetrick, the engineer, was present. Staff presented the request and outlined the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee members reviewed the proposal and discussed with Mr. McGetrick the needed changes. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated March 21, 1994, seeking a deferral of the hearing of the request to the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The request was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, no noes, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. Staff reported that the Commission Bylaws require the applicant to request a deferral at least five (5) days prior to the Hearing, and that a waiver of the Bylaws requirement needed to be approved. The waiver passed with the vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO 19 FILE NO.: Z-5804 NAME: BAPTIST ADOLESCENT TRANSITIONAL HOME -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the east side of Lile Court, approximately 350 feet north of Lile Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC. 9601 I-630 201 S. Izard St. Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72203 227-2200 375-5331 AREA: 2.21 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONIN : 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Transitional Living Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a "Transitional Living Facility" as a residence facility for adolescents enrolled in a treatment program administered by the Baptist Medical System. The applicant proposes to develop a 2.21 acre site on the Baptist Medical System campus, and the proposal involves the construction of 2 buildings as an initial phase and a third building in a later phase. Each of the buildings is planned to contain 6,032 square feet of area and each are one-story and residential in character. Internal traffic circulation will be provided by a private drive of approximately 3,300 feet and there is provision for parking for 21 vehicles. The applicant proposes to preserve as much of the natural setting as possible. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site plan presented by Baptist Medical System for a transitional living facility for adolescents which is planned to be constructed on the Baptist Medical System campus. The proposed site consists of development of 2.21 acres, the construction of 3 residences, each containing 6,032 square feet in a one-story structure. Initially, 2 residences are proposed, but a third building is to be constructed as a later phase. No variances or waivers are requested. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 19 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5804 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The terrain is rolling with a 62 foot slope across the site, slopping downward towards I-630 from the southwest corner of the property. The existing zoning is 0-3. The property to the east and south is also in the 0-3 zoning district. Property across Lile Ct. to the west is zoned 0-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering indicates that the Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be applicable. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150.00 per acre will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Wastewater reports that sewer is available. A capacity contribution analysis is required. Arkansas Power & Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department will require that all drives be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Landscape review reports that the proposed plan for buffers and landscaping exceed the Ordinance requirements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: All required documentation and information have been submitted. There are no remaining issues to be resolved. E. ANALYSIS• The site plan has met all requirements for completeness. All required documents have been submitted. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. : 19 (Continued) FILE NO. : Z-5804 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The representative of the engineering firm, Mr. Frank Riggins, was present. Staff presented the request and outlined the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed the plans and outline, and discussed with Mr. Riggins the comments made. Mr. Riggins responded that the completed documents were forthcoming, and that the needed changes would be made. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and recommended approval of the site plan. The request was included in the Consent Agenda, and the site plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO • z-5796 AME: Custom Services for the Home - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 5707 Kavanaugh Blvd. (downstairs) OWNER/APPLICANT: Marie Isaacs PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the operation of an upholstery shop (furniture only) within this existing, C-3 zoned building. The applicant proposes to occupy 868 square feet of the existing 2,850 square foot building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the south between North Fillmore and North Heights neighborhood. The upper Blvd. and contains one business, The applicant's business occupies takes access from the rear of the 2. Comipatibility with Neighborhood side of Kavanaugh Blvd., Pierce Streets; in the floor fronts onto Kavanaugh an interior design shop. the basement level and building, on the alley. The site is located in an established commercial neighborhood containing a wide variety of uses. The area immediately adjacent to this site contains many small specialty shops, including an art gallery, a gift shop, a florist and interior design studio. This proposed use, specializing only in furniture upholstery and occupying such a small area, would appear to be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkins As is true of much of the Heights' commercial area, there is a lack of sufficient on-site parking to comply with ordinance standards. This proposed business is located in a half block occupied by eight adjoining businesses which front on to Kavanaugh Blvd. There are actually 38 off-street parking spaces located within this half block. There are 14 parking spaces located at the entrance to the applicant's business, which takes access from the alley. The proposed use is not one March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5796 which generates much customer traffic and staff does not feel that the proposed use would negatively impact the parking requirement for the other commercial uses in the area. 4. Screening and Buffers None required for this application. The applicant proposes to occupy a portion of an existing building. No building or parking expansion will take place. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to use 868 square feet of the existing 2,850 square foot building as a furniture upholstery shop. Access will be taken from the rear of the site, off of the alley. Staff feels that this small specialty operation is in keeping with the nature of other commercial uses in the Heights area and is supportive of the proposal. 8. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to there being no outside storage of materials or merchandise. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Marie Isaacs, was present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that the Little Rock Fire Department had voiced concerns about the proposed use. The Fire Marshal questioned whether the basement level of this building was designed for occupancy and whether building codes officials would approve this proposal. Ms. Isaacs was told to contact the Fire Marshall's Office for further information. Discussion then turned to the issue of on-site parking requirements. It was determined that this proposed use would generate a low volume of traffic and that there are sufficient 2 March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5796 off-street parking spaces at the entrance to Ms. Isaacs' shop, which takes access at the rear of the building. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Marie Isaacs, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to make structural changes in the property to satisfy the Fire Department's concerns. The specific changes are as follow: 1. Apply sheetrock to the walls in the stairwell. 2. Install metal door at the top of the stairwell. 3. Cut wood handrail down to ceiling height of lower level. 4. Remove all paints and painting materials. 5. Move all miscellaneous materials back from the foot of the stairs. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval subject to compliance with the Fire Department's conditions and subject to there being no outside storage of materials or merchandise. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO • Z-5797 NAME: LOCATION• Byrd Day Care Center - Conditional Use Permit 3205 Zion Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Brenda J. Byrd PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the conversion of this R-3 zoned, single family residential structure into a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Zion Street, between West 32nd and West 33rd Streets; in the John Barrow neighborhood. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed day care center is located in the middle of an exclusively single family neighborhood. All surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and are occupied by small single family homes. Staff questions the appropriateness of this proposed commercial use being placed in the heart of a stable, single family residential neighborhood. The proposed day care center would be better located on John Barrow Road or West 36th Street, the minor arterial streets located four blocks west and south of this site respectively. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant proposes a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers with two employees. The ordinance requirement is one on-site parking space per employee plus on-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one for each ten children. The site plan as submitted shows only one on-site parking space. The applicant states that she will be transporting the children to and from the day care center and the additional spaces are not needed. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 21 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5797 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant proposes to convert the rear yard of the site into a playground. This area must be enclosed by a 6 foot high opaque fence to screen the playground activity from the adjacent single family homes. 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Zion Street. Provide parking for drop-off and employees. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The request before the Commission is a conditional use permit to convert this R-3 zoned, single family residential structure into a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers. This property is located in the heart of an older, stable, single family residential neighborhood. The proposed day care center requires a total of four on-site parking spaces for employees and drop-off/pickup of children. The site currently has one on-site parking space and is not designed to easily allow the construction of additional spaces. This is not an application for a day care family home but rather for a day care center to be located within this residential neighborhood. Due to the intensity of the proposed use and the inability of the site to accommodate the required on-site parking, staff is not supportive of this request. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being incompatible with the neighborhood and unable to comply with ordinance requirements for on-site parking and drop-off/pickup spaces. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Brenda Byrd, was present. Staff presented the item and pointed out several items of concern. E March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 21 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5797 Staff informed the Committee of the parking requirement and the lack of parking associated with this application. Ms. Byrd stated that she had a van and would pick up and deliver the children each day. Ms. Byrd was advised of staff's recommendation concerning the playground screening and the City Engineer comments regarding right-of-way dedication. Staff informed Ms. Byrd that additional details are needed on any proposed signage as well as the days and hours of operation. The Committee instructed Ms. Byrd to provide staff with the needed information. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Brenda Byrd, was present. There were no objectors present although three letters of opposition had been received. Due to the extreme length of the meeting, the applicant had left to go to work. Prior to leaving Ms. Byrd had asked staff to relay her request to have her application deferred. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, informed the Commission of Ms. Byrd's request and the Commission voted to defer her application to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO • Z -4103-C AME: United Properties - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: United Properties by James Williams PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a single story, 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on this 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related floral merchandise. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of the 1400 Block of South Garfield Drive; two blocks south of West 12th Street and one half block west of South University Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned from R-2 and 0-2 to 0-3 in 1988. The area of 0-3 zoning is located between the commercial property on University Avenue and.West 12th Street and the single family Broadmoor North neighborhood. The proposed office, showroom/warehouse occupies a tract on the eastern edge of the 0-3 zoning, adjacent to the C-3 property on University Avenue. There are other vacant 0-3 zoned lots between this site and the single family residential neighborhood. The proposed use appears to be compatible with the neighborhood of adjacent C-3 and 0-3 zoning, and is adequately separated from the residential neighborhood so as not to have a negative impact on the single family homes. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant proposes a total of 35 on-site parking spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. The number of on-site parking spaces proposed exceeds the March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4103-C 4. 5. 6. ordinance requirement. All parking lot and driveway lighting must be placed so as to reflect away from the nearby residential district. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape strip on the Garfield Drive side of the northern parking lot must be increased to a minimum of six feet. The dumpster or trash receptacle must be oriented away from the street side of the property and must be screened on at least three sides to a height of 8 feet. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct a sidewalk along Garfield Drive. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 10 foot easement along the north, south and east perimeters. Little Rock Municipal Water Works states an acreage charge of $150.00 per acre applies in addition to the normal connection charge. The sewer main relocation must be approved by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility and completed prior to any construction over the existing main. 7. Analysis The proposal before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an 11,900 square foot office, showroom/warehouse on an 0-3 zoned, 1.4 acre site. The proposed occupant is United Wholesale Florist, Inc., a wholesaler of cut flowers and related merchandise. The ordinance defines an office, showroom/warehouse as a facility for mixed use with the following characteristics: 1. A showroom for display of product line which does not include items for user purchase, except within C-3 General Commercial District. 2. A storage or warehouse facility which occupies not more than 60% of the gross floor area of the structure. 3. The principal office of the business 4. Sales to contractors or other businesses installing or delivering to consumer/user. The site is part of a 13 acre tract which was rezoned to 0-3 in 1988. The 0-3 zoning was approved conditioned upon a preliminary plat with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet being approved by the Planning Commission and a final 2 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO Z 4103 C plat being filed for the area along the southern portion of Garfield Drive with a cul-de-sac terminating Garfield Drive at the end of the office development. The preliminary plat has been approved. The final plat for the southern lots and the cul-de-sac must be accomplished as a component of this conditional use permit. Although one 0-3 zoned lot separates this site from the nearest single family residential property, the developer should be sensitive to the residential neighborhood in the site design. The loading docks and dumpster are to be located on the southern end of the property which is separated from the nearest single family home by one 120 foot deep lot. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Huffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with all provisions established in Ordinance No. 15,447 which rezoned this property to 0-3 on March 15, 1988. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) James Williams and Randy Ashmore were present representing the application. Staff presented the issue and noted several items pertaining to the application. The applicant was advised to provide greater details on the percentage of square footage to be devoted to office, showroom and warehouse. Mr. Williams responded that the exact percentages were not worked out but that the ratio would comply with ordinance standards. In response to a question from staff, Mr. Williams stated that the showroom was designed to display items for wholesale customers and that there would be no retail sales. Staff asked the applicant to also provide details on proposed signage, the height and design of the security fence, the dumpster location and screening, and the parking lot and driveway lighting. Mr. Williams responded that this information would be provided. A discussion then followed concerning the provisions of the 1988 rezoning. The applicant stated that work was progressing on complying with all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. q March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, James Williams, was present. There were two objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that a petition and several letters of opposition had been received. James William addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of the proposed office, showroom/warehouse. Mr. Williams stated that the building would be roughly divided as follows: 20% office, 35% showroom and 45% warehouse. Mr. Williams continued by stating that it was United Wholesale Florist's intent to be a good neighbor and that his building would, in fact, help screen the neighborhood from the more intense commercial uses on University Avenue. Jody Williams, of 1607 Charlotte, spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms. Williams presented a video showing the neighborhood as well as United Wholesale Florist's current location. She stated that the proposed use would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and would be better located elsewhere. Ms. Williams made reference to the petition and letters of opposition from the neighborhood which had been presented to the Commission. She concluded by stating that the proposed office, showroom/warehouse was too intense of a use for this location, that the proposed use would not serve the neighborhood residents and that the services offered by the proposed business could not even be used by the residents. Carla Terry, of 1811 Garfield Court, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed use. Ms. Terry stated that she had concerns about truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood to get to the business. She stated that the proposed use was an industrial use and that it would devalue homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wyrick asked staff what route traffic would take to reach the business. Dana Carney pointed out the access route from 12th Street to Cleveland and Northmoor to reach Garfield Court. It was also pointed out that there are two access drives coming off of University Avenue. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a final plat for these lots. 4 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4103-C Pete Hornibrook of Rector Phillips Morse advised the Commission that a final plat had been filed for these lots on Garfield. At Commissioner Walkers request, staff reviewed the conditions of the 1988 Rezoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam asked the applicant to describe the proposed building. Mr. Hornibrook stated that the building would be of masonry construction and would be an improvement over the current use of the property. James Williams stated that the proposed use is located in an office park location. He stated that the land is currently zoned 0-3, not residential. Mr. Williams continued by stating that the site was chosen due its distance from the adjacent neighborhood. He pointed out that the proposed site is on the east side of the 0-3, office development and will provide a screen from the commercial uses on University Avenue. A motion was then made to approve the application. The vote was 5 ayes, 3 noes, and 3 absent. Since the item failed to receive 6 votes, either for or against, it was automatically deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 5 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 23 FILE NO.: Z-5807 NAME: Sonic - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 12214 Westhaven Drive (northwest corner Westhaven Drive and Chenal Parkway) OWNER/APPLICANT: Sonic of Chenal Parkway by van Eberhard PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an eating place with drive-in service on this C-3 zoned .76 acre site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located at the northwest corner of Chenal Parkway and Westhaven Drive; approximately one block west of the Bowman Road/Chenal Parkway intersection. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is one of several in a C-3 development located at the northwest corner of Bowman Road and Chenal Parkway. All surrounding properties are zoned C-3. The new Wal-Mart development is currently under construction directly across Chenal Parkway from this site. The other adjacent C-3 zoned lots are currently vacant. The proposed use is compatible with the commercial neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The ordinance requirement for a 1,144 square foot restaurant is 12 on-site parking spaces. This proposed use has only very limited dining at four tables on the patio. The other customers are served in their vehicles at 36 outside service spaces. An additional ten on-site parking spaces are available for employees. The proposed total of 46 on-site parking spaces, combining the outside service spaces and the ten additional spaces, should be sufficient for this use. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The landscape strip on the west perimeter must be at least 6 feet wide. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 23 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5807 5. Chenal Parkway Design Overlay This property lies within the Chenal Parkway Overlay District and the site design must comply with the standards established by the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay. The maximum size of principal site signs shall be 100 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The signs must be monument type signs. This property has two street frontages and is permitted one sign per street frontage. Both signs must comply with the Chenal Overlay Ordinance. Parking lot lighting shall be designed and located in such a manner so as not to disturb the scenic appearance of the corridor. Lighting must be directed to the parking areas and not reflected to adjacent parcels. No overhead utilities shall be constructed within 100 feet of the Chenal/Financial Center Parkway right-of-way. 6. City Engineer Comments Dedicate right-of-way for Westhaven Drive. Construct additional lane on Chenal Parkway to meet Master Street Plan. Close one driveway onto Bowman Road. 7. Utility Comments Sewer mains installed for Parkway West Commercial Addition have never been accepted by the Little Rock Wastewater Utility. No sewer service is available for this property. 8. Analysis The proposal before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an eating place with drive-in service on this C-3 zoned .76 acre site. The site is located in a commercial development and the proposed use is compatible with other uses in the area. Staff is supportive of the request. 9. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with Chenal Parkway Design Overlay Ordinance E March 22, 1994 ITEM NO • 23 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5807 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Richard Lawrence and Van Eberhard were present representing the application. Staff presented the issue and noted several items of concern. The applicant was directed to provide details on proposed signage and parking lot and driveway lighting, both of which must comply with the Chenal Overlay Ordinance. Staff informed the Committee that a final plat had not been filed for this lot and that the right-of-way for Westhaven Drive had not been dedicated. The applicant stated that the developer would complete these items. Discussion then turned to the City Engineer Comments. Staff informed the Committee that the required third lane was already in place on Chenal Parkway. The applicant was directed to meet with the City's Traffic Engineer to address the comment requiring the closure of one of the driveways onto Westhaven Drive. The Committee advised the applicant to provide the needed information to staff and then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Van Eberhard, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the City's Traffic Engineer had approved the site plan with two driveways onto Westhaven Drive and that there were no other outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with the Chenal Parkway Design Overlay Ordinance The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: G-23-206 Name: Location: Owner/Applicant: Birchwood Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment Birchwood Drive, east of Alamo Circle Various property owners by Robert Brown Reauest: To abandon a portion of Birchwood Drive adjacent to Lots 191 and 209, Markham Pines Addition. This item is a follow-up issue related to Appletree Planned Commercial Development which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 8, 1994 (Z-5787). STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way Initial response from other city departments reflects no public need for this right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain This portion of Birchwood Drive is an asphalt paved street with some curb and gutter. The street dead -ends at the west boundary of Lot 209. The portion of Birchwood Drive which previously extended west of Lot 209 was recently abandoned by the City. This remaining part of Birchwood Drive is currently used as an illegal dumping area and has created problems for the adjacent residential property owners. 5. Development Potential Once the right-of-way is abandoned, the pavement will be removed and the property developed as a landscaped area to further buffer the residential properties from a planned commercial development which is proposed for construction on adjacent property located to the south. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 24 (Continued) FILE NO.: G-23-206 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Single family homes are located adjacent to the north and east of the right-of-way proposed for abandonment. The property to the south was recently rezoned for a proposed planned commercial development. This right-of-way is not currently used other than as a place for some individuals to dump trash. Once the right-of-way is abandoned and the pavement removed, the area will be developed as a landscape and buffer area between the single family homes and the proposed planned commercial development. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced as of this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities The area of the right-of-way will be retained as a utility easement. There will be no effect on public services or utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the adjacent property owners. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this right-of-way will eliminate an ongoing problem with illegal dumping and will allow for the development of a landscape and buffer area which will further screen the adjacent residential neighborhood from the proposed commercial development to the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Robert Brown, was present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that no letters of approval had been received from the utility companies and all adjacent property owners had not signed the petition for abandonment. Mr. Brown stated that he had most of the needed information and would provide all items to staff as soon as possible. E March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 24 (Continued) FILE NO • G-23-206 The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Robert Brown, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a utility easement. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Ball, Walker). 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Roman Catholic Diocese of Little Rock Robert M. Brown Chenal Parkway and Atkins Road Rezone from 0-3 to C-2 Commercial 3.29 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned C-2 South - Vacant, zoned 0-3 East - Vacant, zoned C-3 West - Vacant, zoned 0-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is situated in close proximity to the Chenal Parkway/West Markham intersection, and the request is to rezone the acreage from 0-3 to C-2. The site has frontage on the Chenal Parkway and Atkins Road which runs from West Markham to Kanis Road. Currently, the land is undeveloped and wooded. This location was rezoned to an office district in the mid 1970'x, as part of the original Rock Creek Plan. In 1986 a request was filed to rezone seven acres, approximately one-half of the site, to C-3. Staff recommended C-2 as being more appropriate for the site, and the application was amended to C-2 during the Planning Commission hearing process. At that time, there was strong neighborhood opposition to any commercial reclassification of the property. C-2 was offered by the staff because it is a site plan review district and provides additional protection to the single family neighborhood. Zoning in the general vicinity is R-2, R-5, 0-3, C-2, C-3 and I-2. The property under consideration abuts 0-3 and C-2 zoning, with C-3 across the Chenal Parkway and 0-3 across Atkins Road. Land use includes single family, some commercial, an auto dealership and an AP&L facility. Vacant March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Cont.) tracts of land are found throughout the area, and there is a well established single family neighborhood to the south, the Timber Ridge Addition. The land use plan for the area reflects the existing zoning and splits the 16 acres between commercial and office. The other three corners of the Chenal Parkway/West Markham intersection are identified for commercial use and are zoned C-3. Increasing the amount of commercial acreage at such a major intersection appears to be a reasonable option for the area and should not create any additional problems for the surrounding properties. C-2 requires another level of review prior to any development occurring on the land because it is a site plan review district. If the C-2 rezoning is granted, the depth of the remaining 0-3 will be 200 feet, which is adequate separation between the commercial area and the single family subdivision. Also, the old zoning file makes reference to an agreement which requires site plan review for the 0-3 land and indicates that the "agreement is a convenant which shall run with the land and which binds subsequent owners of the property..." This should give the subdivision additional protection and ensure a quality development adjacent to the single family lots. Because of the existing land use plan, staff is recommending a plan amendment for the area. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The plan recommends office use. The proposal to extend commercial uses to the South should be done very carefully, so as not to negatively affect the residential area to the south. The Planning Staff recommends that an open space buffer be shown on the plan and zoned as well, to assure that the buffer will be in place. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Chenal Parkway has a current right-of-way standard of 60 feet from the centerline, and the existing is deficient. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required to satisfy the Master Street Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-2 rezoning request. 2 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Chairperson Chachere explained that Item 2 (Chenal Business Addition Preliminary Plat), Item 16 (Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD), and Item 25 (the rezoning of a portion of the proposed Chenal Business Addition from 0-3 to C-2) would be discussed together, but then would be voted on individually. Staff presented the various requests and reported that Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, had delivered a statement to staff outlining the League's concerns which she feels need to be addressed, and staff reported that a copy of the statement from Ms. Bell was at each Commissioners desk. David Jones, with Vogle Realty, introduced himself, and indicated that he was representing the interests of Dick Layton Buick in the hearing. He related that Dick Layton Buick had tried to make sure that the development was as sensitive as possible to the neighborhoods in the area; that, therefore, the deed restrictions imposed on the sale of the property will contain provisions which will prohibit: an adult book or adult video store; a night club or place of recreation or amusement; a car wash, except as an incidental use associated with the auto dealership; and, any business serving alcoholic beverages, except as an incidental use to a restaurant use. He explained that he and others involved in the project had met with the neighbors, that 12-15 had showed up and the meeting had lasted about 2 hours; and, that, as a result, the developer was prepared to make the following concessions: there would be no body shop constructed as part of the development; there would be no outdoor paging of employees; there would be no off-site parking of vehicles; there would be no off-street loading of vehicles being delivered; there would be no circus tents, flashing lights, search lights, pendents, or carnival -type promotions; test drive routs will be defined and will not run through the Timber Ridge neighborhood, and customers will be accompanied by sales representatives during test drives; and, site lighting will be directional and controlled to light only the site, and site lighting will be reduced after hours by two-thirds. Mr. Jones concluded with the statement that Dick Layton, at the meeting with neighbors, had committed to assist the Timber Ridge and Point West neighborhoods in the development of a neighborhood park. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, the project engineer, presented the development scheme to the 3 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Cont.) Commission. He reviewed with Commissioners the site plan, landscaping plan, the location of the various proposed activities, and the rendering showing the view of the project from the front. Mr. Jones added that the Dick Layton Buick and the rezoning issues are contractually interrelated, and one cannot proceed without the other. Dick Layton promised that he would not return to the Commission at a late time with requests for tents or banners. He reiterated that there would be no outside paging, and that the alarm system is a silent alarm, not an audible alarm. He explained that the University Ave. location will be retained and will be used for a storage lot for overflow vehicle storage from the new lot. Dickson Flake, representing the Catholic Diocese, explained that the Diocese had concerns in concluding the sale to Dick Layton Buick that the remaining C-2 land available could not be developed; that the remaining tract of C-2 land was too narrow and development would be difficult. The 0-3 area, on the other hand, was a large area. There was a need, then, to increase the C-2 area for development of that area to be workable. The change of a portion of the 0-3 area to C-2 would leave a 5 acre tract zoned 0-3, and would be 200 feet in depth along the Timber Ridge neighborhood. The advantage of the change to the Diocese would be that there would be adequate C-2 area to be marketable. The advantage to the neighborhood would be that the 0-3 area would be too small for a high rise development, necessitating a smaller office development scheme of no more than two -store office buildings. This would provide a good buffer along the neighborhood's boundary. Commissioner Oleson asked Mr. Flake if the Diocese would commit to that restriction of no more than two story office buildings. Mr. Flake responded that the Diocese would make that commitment. Mary Douglas introduced herself as a representative of the Timber Ridge, Gibralter Heights, and Point West subdivisions, and indicated that she had a prepared statement to read, which she then read. She related that she also had a map which shows the intensity of the commercial development in the area of the three neighborhoods, and explained that there was too much development making it too congested; that the area would not 4 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Con be a pleasant place to live in the future is development continued. She then asked that the item be deferred to give the neighborhood time to do further study on the effects of the proposed development on the neighborhoods. Mr. Jones responded that the site is already composed of 8 acres of C-2 land which would allow a major development to be constructed without rezoning. In such a case, traffic would be a great deal greater than it would with the current proposal. Dick Layton Buick would generate 60-70 vehicles per day; therefor, on 3 acres of the tract, traffic would be substantially decreased from what might be expected from C-2 zoned land. He said that the developer had met all requirements to notify the neighbors and to meet with them, and the developer does not want to delay the matter. The developer does not want another consultant brought in by the neighborhood "second-guessing" the design and choices already made. Commissioner Putnam, addressing Ms. Douglas, related that the area is currently zoned C-2, and there are about 100 uses that could go into the area without review or the property owners being notified or consulted. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles advised the applicant and neighbors that there is approximately a month between the Commission hearing and the Board of Directors meeting, and that during this interim, further discussion could take place. Mr. Jones related that, if the item were recommended for approval, that, indeed, further discussion could continue, and that a meeting with the neighborhood and their consultant, George Wittenberg, could be held. Ms. Douglas indicted that she felt that there were questions remaining which needed clarification. Commissioner Nicholson responded that all the issues had been resolved and "signed -off" on by staff. Ms. Nicholson, addressing Ms. Douglas, said that the neighborhood was not sure that they were for or against the development, and that she would not support a request by the neighborhood for a deferral without specific reasons. She advised Ms. Douglas to meet with Mr. Wittenberg and develop specific requests which might be points of discussion with the developer, then to bring these to the developer for a response. Any further concessions or agreements could be addressed at the Board of Directors meeting. Ms. Nicholson then asked Ms. Douglas for a clarification as to who the letter which Ms. Douglas had read was from. 5 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Cont.) Ms. Douglas explained that there was no neighborhood association; that the letter was from the group of residents who had been meeting and discussing the situation. Christi Phelps addressed the Commission. She said that the neighborhood has a good "confidence level" regarding the Dick Layton Buick proposal, but that they do not have a good "confidence level,, regarding the rezoning issue. Relating to the rezoning issue, the neighborhood requests: a 150 foot deep open space strip abutting the Timber Ridge neighborhood; that there be permitted no access to Atkins Rd.; that a study be conducted to determine the effect of the change in zoning on the surrounding neighborhoods; and, a requirement be imposed which will provide for site plan review on any development in the rezoned area. Relating to the Dick Layton Buick, Ms. Phelps continued: that there be no access to Atkins Rd.; that there be no pole signs allowed; that parking for employees be restricted to on- site; that there be no unloading of the transport trucks from Atkins Rd., W. Markham St., or Chenal Parkway; that the alarm system be a silent alarm; that the dumpster be in an enclosure and that servicing be restricted to weekdays only and only after 8:30 A.M.; that there be no test driving allowed on Atkins Rd. or in the surrounding neighborhoods; that the dealership be closed on Sundays; that there be no promotional activities allowed; that there be no expansion of the dealership allowed onto adjacent property; that if the dealership were vacated, that notification and review by the neighborhoods be required; that lighting be controlled and directional; and that landscaping be with evergreen trees and scrubs. Mr. Layton responded that, in the years he had been in business, he had never been open on Sundays, but that he could not commit to such a restriction. Mr. Jones responded that most of the items had already been agreed to; others could not be agreed to, such as the restriction on the expansion of the dealership. Robert Brown discussed the location of the proposed signs, saying that the one sign along Chenal Parkway would conform to the "Design Overlay District" requirements, but that the sign which lies 300 feet to the west of Chenal Parkway on W. Markham St. would be a standard commercial sign. He explained that since the sign is over 300 feet from Chenal Parkway, that it was not proposed to conform to the "DOD" restrictions. March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 Z-5802 (Cont.) Mr. Jones, returning to the discussion of the proposed rezoning, added that the request is for C-2 zoning,, and that site plan review is required; therefore, the neighbors would have a chance to participate in site plan review hearings when the development continues. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Flake to comment further on the interrelatedness of the proposals. Mr. Flake explained that the approval of one request without the other would not permit the Dick Layton Buick proposal to continue. The Diocese could not conclude the sale without assurance that the remaining tract is marketable. Mr. Flake, continuing, said that, as well as restricting the development in the 0-3 area to 2 floors in height, he would also make the concession to provide for site plan review of the development within the 0-3 area. Art Kelly, saying that he was a resident of the Timber Ridge neighborhood, indicated that he supported the proposed development. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #2, the preliminary plat for Chenal Business Addition. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #16, the Dick Layton Buick Short -Form PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve Item #25, the rezoning of a portion of the tact from 0-3 to C-2. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 7 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO • S-969 NAME: CHENAL COMMERCIAL PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT -- TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, approximately one-quarter mile west of the entrance to Parkway Village and one- quarter mile east of the Kanis Rd. intersection at One Source. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: CCMN JOINT VENTURE THE MEHLBURGER FIRM, INC. 3600 Cantrell Rd. 201 S. Izard St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 35.403 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 2,200 ZONING: C-3 and 0-3 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Commercial, Offices, & Apartments The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat at its March 9, 1993 hearing. No work has begun on the site yet, and since the Subdivision Regulations provide for the expiration of the Commission approval after one year if no work has begun and final plat has not been submitted for approval, the applicant proposes a time extension of that regulation. At the Planning Commission hearing of February 8, 1994, the Commission approved site plan for the Chenal Valley Apartments. These apartments will occupy 2 lost of this subdivision; so, since development is imminent, within a very short time the requirements for keeping the preliminary plat approval active will be met. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a time extension to keep the approved preliminary plat active for an additional year. The developer proposes to begin development within this upcoming year and to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for moving towards approval of a final plat within that time. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site remains undeveloped. L a March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 26 (Continued) FILE NO • S-969 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: There are no new comments. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-94, Approval Procedure, of the Subdivision Regulations, paragraph (e), states: "A preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for twelve (12) months or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning staff. Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void...." E. ANALYSIS• The developer has requested a time extension to keep the preliminary plat approval active. Development is expected to begin within this next year, and there will be a final plat for the Chenal Valley Apartments project which will satisfy the requirement for the final plat submission. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the time extension. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Staff presented the request. The Committee reviewed the matter and forwarded the request to the Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and recommended approval of the time extension for the preliminary plat to remain active and binding. The request was included in the Consent Agenda, and the time extension was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. 2 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO. : 27 FILE NO. : S-203-B NAME: UNIVERSITY OFFICE PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT -- RECERTIFICATION LOCATION: South of Northmoor Drive, along Charlotte and Garfield Drives DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: UNIVERSITY PARTNERS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. c/o Rector-Phillips-Morse 401 S. Victory St. 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72207 374-1666 664-7807 AREA: 12.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 26 FT. NEW STREET: 50 ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21. 02 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the recertification of a preliminary plat which was approved on July 12, 1988 . The area under consideration was a developed and platted residential subdivision, but was re-zoned to 0-3. One of the requirements of the re-zoning was for construction of a cul-de-sac at the south end of Garfield Dr. at the south limits of the re-zoned area. The development of the area for office uses has never begun, and the cul-de-sac was never built. Another request on the current agenda is for a conditional use involving an area within this subdivision. Since the approval of the preliminary plat has expired, but the requirements of the re-zoning are still binding, the applicant requests recertification of the plat. The construction of the cul-de-sac will be undertaken. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Recertification of a previously approved preliminary plat is requested. The Commission approved the preliminary plat on July 12, 1988. The action was in response to a re-zoning of the tract for office use, and entailed a requirement to construct a cul-de-sac at the south end of Garfield Dr. The streets had been previously constructed to residential standards in a residentially zoned district. With the re-zoning, a requirement was imposed that the cul-de-sac be constructed to isolate the business from the residential areas. The applicant has now begun development of the March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 27 (Continued) FILE NO • S -203-B business uses in the area and the preliminary plat approval has expired. Since the requirements of the re -zoning, which were the basis for the requirement for the installation of the cul-de-sac, are still binding, the Commission is requested to recertify the plat and allow the development to commence. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area of the preliminary plat has residential streets in place which were constructed years ago. The property is cleared and the terrain is level. No development of structures within the boundary of the plat has taken place. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering points out that an additional cul-de-sac is required by the Ordinance to be constructed on Garfield Dr. as a termination of Garfield Dr. from the south. When the cul-de-sac is constructed for the termination from the north, traffic from the south will face a dead-end. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: In the re -zoning and subsequent preliminary plat approval, requirements were imposed on the development which required the construction of the one cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the north. The requirements were imposed and the plat layout was approved at that time. The name "University Office Park" has already been taken; the name of the proposed subdivision must be changed. E. ANALYSIS• Because of the imposition of the requirements for the cul-de-sac by the Board of Directors in the re -zoning of the property, the Planning staff recommends that the requirements not be changed, and that the issue of the need of an additional cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the south not be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested recertification. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Mr. Joe White, representing the engineering firm, was present. Staff indicated the nature of the request and the concerns of staff. The Engineering staff pointed out the need for the 2 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 27 (Continued) FILE NO • S -203 -B additional cul-de-sac on Garfield Dr. from the south. Mr. White responded that when the original approval was granted, the Fire Department had not seen a need for a cul-de-sac, since the remaining stub street from the south is so short. Staff also pointed out the need to select an alternate name for the subdivision. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for final resolution on the matter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended th original zoning was preliminary plat was i re -visited at this t originally approved was included in the re -certified with the 1 abstention. (MARCH 22, 1994) at issues dealt with in 1988 at the approved by the Board of Directors approved by the Planning Commissio me, but that the preliminary plat be re -certified as requested. The Consent Agenda, and the preliminary vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent 3 time the and the n not be as request plat was and 0 CC U W cc W 0 Z O zn- cn U z z Z J m ®��000000�� 000■■oooo .o..©.®®...m summa®000000 mmmmmmooe0® ®ao©moo©a®vv ■■■■■■■■■■■■ .00©oovovo.. ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ®40m®©®m®® ■■■■■■■■■■. ■v■oo■■m®®�� ®i■o■■o■oo®� wUMEMEE00ME OMEMEME®■®o■ e■eoo■©e■0o■ ' ©®■0E00®©®0� • vwoo®a®ev■ o�®.,o■moo®■ oo■®®ego®©®: " • ' • . r C■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■M■■■■■M■■ ■■■O■■■■■Y■ ■■■■■■■■■AM ■■■■■■■■■M■N ■■■■■■■■■M■ C■■■■■■■■MEN ■■■■■■■■■■■ C■■■■■■■■■■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■..■� ■■■■■■■■■■■ IMMMEMOMMEM ►; ■■■■■■■■■■■M ■■■■■■■■■■■N IMEMEMEMEMER .■■■■■■■■■ IMEMEMEMON■■■■■■■■■■R ■■■■■■■■■■■■'� ■■■■■■■■■■■c� ■■■■■■■■■■ Immommommom ■■■■■■■■■■■; ■■■■■■■■■■■ ..,' • • z m Q I - z w w CID al Q LU �I 9' � c, J March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Date Chairman AaA��� Secretary