Loading...
pc_04 09 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE RECORD SUBDIVISIONS APRIL 9, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum being 9 in number. II.Approval of the Minutes The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. III.Commi ssioners Present: IV.Commissioners Absent: VI.City Attorney Present: John Schelereth John Clayton Betty Sipes Richard Massie Bill Rector, Jr. William Ketcher, Acting Chairman Ida Boles Dorothy Arnett James C. Summerlin David Jones Jerilyn Nicholson, Chairman Mark Stodola ·-- SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES April 9, 1985 Deferred Items: A.Hilltop Subdivision of Plot, Country Hornes Additionof the City of Little Rock B.Putnam Realty "Short Form PCD" {Z-4334) c.Markham Plaza Shopping Center "PCD" {Z-4422-A) Preliminary Plats: 1.Hillsborough Revised Preliminary -Phase V Planned Unit Development: 2.Landscape Material and Design{Revised) "PCD" {Z-4188-A) Site Plan Review: 3.Market Street Mall4.West Side Tennis and Fitness Center Conditional Use: 5.West 11th Street {Z-4395-A)6.Greater Center Star Baptist Church {Z-4420)7.Woodlawn {Z-4424)8.South Johnson Street {Z-4427) Right-Of-Way Abandonments: 9.Innsbrook Circle Street Closure Other Issues: 10.Riversedge Addition -Bill of As surance Amendment11.Master Street Plan Issue12.Capitol View Mini-Warehouses April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Hilltop Subdivision Preliminary of Plot 2, Country Homes Addition LOCATION: North side of River Mountain, Rodney Parham & Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe De Palo Mehlb urger, Ta nner & #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Associates P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 19 FT. NEW STREET: 690 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A.Site History B. c. The site was before the Commission on December 18, 1984, for PRO approval of a condominiumproject. The application was denied. Existing Conditions The land involved currently has one single family frameresidence on the site. Elevations ra nge from 525 to570'. Scattered tr ees and ot her vegetation areapparent. The area consists of la rge lots, singlefamily, except for a church to the south of the site."OS" strip serves as a bu f fer area between the churchand the property. Development Proposal This is a proposal to develop 5.013 acres into 19 lotsfor single family development, with 690 feet of newstreets. The average lot size is ap proximately11,486 square feet and the minimum is 7,350 squarefeet. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued D. E. Engineering Comments 1.Improve River Mountain Road to minor arterialstandards. River Mountain Road and theright-of-way is controlled by A.H.T.D.; discussstreet and drainage plans with them. 2.Submit internal drainage and detention plan;discuss plan with Mike Batie, 371-4861. Analysis Technically, the proposal meets the ord inance requirements. Sta ff does not oppose the use of the land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The ap plicant discussed the proposal with the Committee. He explained that the Bill of Assurance restrictions expired in 1964; the homes would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the plan remained open for the Commission's input as to how to develop the property or what re strictions to place in the Bill of Assurance. Staff gave its support of the plat, but stated that both the Suburban Plan and the recent Corridor Study designates this area for large lot single family. The Committee then discussed whether or not this plan constituted large lot single family. One Committee memb er felt that this plan was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Other Committee members requested that an alternate plan with a mid-rise overl ooking the River be submitted. They felt that such a plan re viewed under the PUD process would maintain the existing frontage and vi sual quality of the area. The applicant was advised that the Commission's responsibility was to assess the overall impact of the prop osal to the entire area, not only the site. They felt that whatever development occurs on this site would set a precedent and have a _significant im pact on how the entire hillside will be developed. ·_,. ·- April 9, 1985 SUBD IVISIONS Item No. A -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-12-85) The ap plicant, Mr. Joe DePalo, was present. He was accompanied by Mr. Joe Kemp, his attorney, and Mr. Don Chambers, the architech. An alternative plan showing a mid-rise was presented, as was requested by the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Chambers explained that his cl ient was attempting to use his property to its highest and best use. They felt that the highest and best use was once large lot residential, but since development of the church, it is now a dense residential use. He also explained that the prop erty co uld co ntain 25 lots, but he only proposed 19. If the mid-rise were to be co ns idered as a PUD, it was requested that the single family plat be co ntinued until the PUD was approved or denied. Mr. Chambers further explained that the proposed plan included homes of 1800 to 2000 square feet at a co st of $150,000 to $200,000; and that his cl ient's general feeling was that the total environment of the property would change due to the intrusion of the church, which was a nonresidential use. He stated this proposal only represented an attempt to buffer the office use by a higher residential use. Mr. DePalo then explained his position. He had acquired the property in 1981 and was advised that the co rridor was subject to be changed, but that "R-2" would be the prevailing use. At the time, he was una ware that a ch urch could be built in the area. When the church was co ns idered by the Commission, he asked his neighbors to join him opposing it; but they didn't. He then proceeded to pass pictures around illustrating the damaging ef fects of the church. He stated that he was a landowner within the law who had the right to develop his property. He as sured the Commission that he intended to reside on the land and that his approach was not that of vengeance. He mentioned that Mr. Darragh had made what he co ns idered to be a "hollow gesture" to purchase his prop erty. Mr. Herb Rule represented the property owners to the ea st. He felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the neighborhood and that his clients had tried unsuccessfully to work with DePalo. He stated that there was a sign up for 8 to 10 years on the church property before Mr. DePalo bought the church property ad vertising the co nstruction of a church and that during Commission review, the church was required to leave two acres and green space as a protective buffer for Mr. DePalo. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued Mr. Darragh agr eed that he was asked by Mr. DePalo to oppose the church. He explained that he couldn't since the residents to the east knew that a church would be built and preferred this to a commercial or office use. He assured the Commission that if he bought DePalo's pr operty, it would remain large lot single family. Mr. DePalo spoke again. He questioned whether or not his neighbors to the east sh ould have been knowledgeable about the "R-2" zoning, just as he was expected to be knowledgeable about the church in an "R-2" zone. Mr. Rule stated that the property should be zoned "R-1,' instead of "R-2." He felt that "R-2" was an insult to the property. The Commission discussed the item. Several Commissioners had mixed feelings about the development since it was realized that Mr. DePalo had the right to develop his property. On the other hand, a proposal of 19 or 20 lots would be a drastic departure from what was existing, and the neighbors also had the right not to have their entire environment totally uprooted. It was explained that the Commission's duty was to consider not only this site but what was fair on both sides and what was beneficial for the community at-large. The Commission felt that what happened on this property determined how the entire hillside would be developed. Mr. DePalo was asked to defer the item for 30 days and work out a solution with abutting property owners. Mr. DePalo stated that he resented the fact that he was within the law and still had to compromise on a right that he is entitled to enjoy. He felt that there must be some question that right existed. Finally, he agreed to defer for 30 days and work out a solution with his neighb ors. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2-28-85) There was no review of this item. Water Works -An 8 inch watermain extension will be required. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-12-85) A motion for a 30-day deferral, as requested by the applicant, was ma de and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was no further review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a letter was received by the applicant that requested a 30-day deferral. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ----April 9, 1985 SU BDIVISIONS Item No. B -File No. 364A NAME: Putnam Realty "Short Form PCD" (Z-4334) LOCATION: 150 Feet South of 65th Street, East Side of Murray Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Putnam Realty/Bill Putnam 1820 Union National Bank Building Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666Little Rock, AR 72201 376-3616 AREA: .68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I-2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Commercial/Industrial A. B. Site History None. Development Objectives/Proposal The construction of a 40' x 75' building on .68 acres that would house all the activities of the Jack House, Inc. This company is involved in the building, sale and distribution of hy draulic jacks used to service general av iation aircraft. C.Engineering Comments D. Submit internal dr ainage plan to include de tentionconsiderations. Analysis The ap plicant should clarify his proposal. Inpre-preliminary discussions, he indicated that hewanted to replat the property, keep the existing au tobusiness on one lot and put the proposed building onthe other. The submitted plat does not ind icate similar intentions. The applicant should also specify which zoning classification use group he wants on the property. E.Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comment until further info is received. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B -Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant's engineer was asked to resolve the following issues: (1) whether the request involved a replat1 and (2)how to characterize the use proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objec tors. It was felt that the application should be deferred for 30 days, since the plan did not reflect the applicant's request for flexibility to expand to 6,000 square feet in the future. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and O absent. SUBDIVISION COMMI TTEE REVIEW: There was no further revew of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the applicant had decided to withdr aw the request. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. -- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: Markham Plaza Shopping Center "Short Form PCD" {Z-4422-A) LOCATION: 119.5 feet West of Meadowbrook Chip's Barbecue Shopping Ce nter DEVELOPER: Donald Kirk 319 N. Gill Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 37 5-4469 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Merlin E. Seamon 2723 Foxcroft, #218 Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 225-65543 AREA: 1.853 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 EXISTING ZONING: "C-3" and "R-2" PROPOSED ZONING: "PCD" PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center and Health Club A.Site History This item was considered by the Commission at the lastmeeting in March, as a request for rezoning from "R-2"to "C-3" in order that a health spa may be built behindan existing commercial shopping center. Staff did notsupport the rezoning request. The Commission felt thatlack of parking was a major issue, so the filing of aPUD application would provide a means of getting anoverview of the entire project. B.Development Objectives: 1.To enhance the neighborhood and existing shoppingcenter. C.Proposal 1.The construction of a health club and retail in anexisting shooping consisting of 1.853 acres. 2.Schedule of uses {existing): {a) Hillcrest Cleaners •••••• 825 { b) Barber Shop ............. 430 { C) Beauty Shop ............. 454 {d) Myers Fabric •••••••••••• 1,434 { e) Clothes Closet .......... 1,101 -- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No . C -Continued 3. { f ) { g) ( h) ( i) { j ) ( k) Robinson Paint •••••••••• Laundromat •••••••••••••• Fuller & Son Hardware ••• Breedlove's Florist ••••• Chip's Restaurant ••••••• Vacant Retail Space ••••• 2,318 1,980 4,669 916 1,434 6,319 Total Existing Space •••••••• 21,880 Schedule of Uses (proposed): Health Club ••••••••••••••••• 9,520 Robinson Paint Addition..... 800 Total Proposed Space ••.••••• 10,320 sq. ft. Total Space Existing and Proposed •••..•••••••••.•••• 32,200 sq. ft. 4.Classifications of uses/parking: Use Personal Service Retail and Misc. Restaurant Offices To tal Parking Spaces STAFF ANALYSIS: Sq. Ft. 884 27,981 1,434 1,101 Parking 4 88 14 3 109 This plan was preferred by the Subdivision Co mmittee out of alternatives that were submitted. The proposed parking meets the requirement, and staff has no problem with the use. This pl an has reduced the square footage of the building and provided a 20' landscaped st rip on the south which is adjacent to the residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to Engineering co mments. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Merle Seamon represented the develop er. A revised plan was submitted that added parking areas and reduced the building area. Mr. Seamon reported that he had spoken with Mike Batie, a City Engineer, about drainage requirements, and he pl anned to meet those requirements. Mr. Steve Walder, a neighboring property owner, expressed drainage concerns. A motion for approval of the project was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, O noes and 2 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 -File No. 24R NAME: LO CATION: APPLICANT/ENGINEER: Bob Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Lit tle Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003 Hillsborough Subdivision -Phase V -Revised South end of Hillsborough Lane AREA: 24.29 acres NO. OF LOTS: 44 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family REQUEST: Revision of an ap proved preliminary plat. STAFF REPORT: This is a request to advise an ap proved preliminary by changing Hickory Ridge from a cul-de-sac to a stub out at the west property li ne (which will add the balance of 5 acres to the plat and complete the platting of Mr. Brown's original 100-acre tract}; and the addition of two new private drives to serve Lots 120 and 121. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Submit int ernal drainage plan for revised area to include detention. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant should explain and justify a request for parallel private dr ives and stub out streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff reserves comment at this time. ·--� April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 -Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant's engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, explained that the private parallel drives were for service to an existing lot in Phase V and the stub-out would service landlocked parcel. He stated that the developer felt that the drives would provide a better means of access to the lots. Much of the discussion involved the water service issue. Water Works reported that there was no service in the area and that no lots would be served until the proposed pump station is in service. Any lots which will provide a floor elevation above 695 won't be served unless additional elevated storage or pumping is constructed, specifically for Lots 142, 143 and 160-164. Questions arose as to whether or not approval of this proposal would result in a commitment to lots that could not be serviced and whether Water Works wanted to bear the responsibility for maintenance of the elevated storage for the additional lots. The applicant was advised to meet with Water Works and provide staff with documentation explaining that the restriction on water service levels on the previous preliminary {Phase V) have been modified and providing some type of time frame on provision of the pump facility. Additional Water Works Comments: A 20' easement required adjacent to the west edge of the development which contains an existing 12 11 main. Additional easements may be required if existing mains are outs ide of proposed rights-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. The issue was identified as in volving Area B, and some specification as to when it should be platted. Mr. Richardson felt that the subdivision ordinance only required him to state the source of the water supply which he said was the Little Rock Water Works. He objected to the deletion of Phase B, but requested approval of the balance of the issues, which included a stub out access to Lots 119 and 120, recognition that Hillsborough Court is a cul-de-sac instead of a stub-out and Hickory Ridge is a stub-out instead of a cul-de-sac. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 -Continued There was some discussion on including Lot 142 in Tract B, since a portion of the lot was above the elevation of available water service at this time. One Commissioner felt that approval of the plat was all right, since the final plat could not be signed until all utilities are provided. The general concensus of some other Commissioners, ho wever, appeared to be a concern about approving a preliminary lay-out when there was an unresolved technical problem, which could change the lot arrangement. Also, the Commissioners felt that some indication of when Lot 142 in Tract B could be serviced was needed. The motion was made to remove Lot 142 from Phase A and include it in Phase B, and that Phases A and C be approved, but Phase B be removed from the plat, that Hickory Ridge Street be stubbed out at the split between Lots 141 and 143, and 164 and 142. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. A discussion followed on whether to deny Phase B and remove it from the plat, or deny the entire su bdivision as submitted. The applicant requested that the motion be amended to deny and remove Phase B from the plat. The question arose as to the intention of the applicant's desire to remove Phase B from the project. He was asked whether or not he objected to paying an additional filing fee or coming back to the Pl anning Commmission for approval. It was decided that if the water problem is solved, that the applicant would come back to the Commission. A motion was amended to deny Phase B, since there was no demonstration that it could be serviced by water. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, O noes and 2 absent. Apri l 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 -File No. 555-A NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Allen Smith, Jr. Landscape Material and Design, Inc. Environmental Contractors 7901 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 455-2962 REQUEST: Landscape Material and Design "Revised" PCD -(Z-4188-A) One-fourth mile south of Stagecoach on the west side of Sibley Hole Road Revision of an approved "PCD" pro ject for a landscaping business. STAFF REPORT: This is a re quest to revise an approved PUD project. The changes consist of: (1)Moving the tool/storage/workshop from the west to theeast side of the prop erty and expanding it from a24' x 48' accessory building to on e of 80' x 20'.This building will be built up of f the ground 6' with9" x 7" piers. (2)Expanding the "greenhouse/lathe house" from 20' x 60'to 100' x 140'. This would be expanded over a period of time. The structure is a shade cl oth (nylon mesh) stretched over a frame of 2" x 6" lumber supported by 5" x 5" posts. It is to be used for prot ection of shade and semi-shade loving landscape plants. The floor will be of gr avel with no solid walls. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (A)Those facilities pr oposed in the floodplain must beconstructed with their minimum floor elevation l' abovethe 100-year flood elevat ion. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 -Continued (B)Only plant materials will be allowed in the floodwayarea; no fences, construction materials, pallets, etc.,will be permitted. STAFF ANALYSIS: St aff does not feel that the revision sought by the applicant will be detrimental to the project itself or the surrounding areas. There is a requirement, however, that all structures must set back 25' from the floodway. Staff supports the intrusion into the required setback area only if it was approved on the previous plans; otherwise, the applicant is asked to comply with the requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, sub ject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: It was decided that the proximity of the buildings to the floodway should not be an issue since it involved a greenhouse and a building raised 6' from the ground, provided there would be no enclosure of the raised building in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant reported that he had failed to get his notices out on time. He then requested a 30-day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -File No. 371 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: McClellan Development Co. 2207 Hidden Valley Drive Suite 209 Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 225-5569 Market Street Mall -Site Plan Review Northwest cor ner of Merrill and Market ENGINEER: Peter & Associates, Inc. 2207 Hidden Valley Drive Suite 205 Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 225-0500 AREA: 8.1 acress NO. OF LOTS: 2 ZONING: "C-3," "C-4" FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center REQUEST: Site Plan Review of a multiple building site. A.Proposal: 1.The replatting of 8.10 acres into two tracts andsite plan review of the 7.55 acre portion fordevelopment of a commercial shopping ce nter. B. 2.Site Data Acreage Building Area Parking Spaces Required Parking Spaces Provided Engineering Comments: Tract A 7.55 137,000 sq. ft. 365 442 Tract B 0.55 3,900 sq. ft. 13 15 1.Submit internal drainage and detention plans. 2.Construct sidewalks on Merrill and Market Streets. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -Continued c.Analysis: An application to down zone all of the property to"C-3" has been filed. Also, the Board of Adju stmentwill be dealing with a height vari ance for one of thebuildings on the site. Staff views the proposal as an appropriate use of theproperty, since there are similar type uses in thearea. The property is currently platted into fourlots, but will consist of only two on the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan that added easements on the setback line. No si gnificant issues were identified. Water Works Comments: On-site fire line and fire hydrants will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. --- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 -File No. 372 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPE R/APPLICANT: Phil Wiggins Westside Tennis and Fitness Center 4600 Sa m Peck Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 227-4242 Westside Tennis and Fitness Center Northwest intersection of Sam Peck and Peckerwood -4600 Sam Peck Road ENGINEER/ARCHITECT: Ed L. Scharff, Jr. Blass, Chilcote & Carter 303 West Capitol P.O. Drawer 3019 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 376-6671 AREA: 5.33 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "AF" PROPOSED USES: Tennis Courts REQUEST: Site Plan Review of a multip le building si te. A.Proposal: B. 1.The construction of a 40' x 75' swimming pool,approxima tely 5' deep and a 12 ' x 18' children'spool, both with surrounding de cks, fences andgates tha t will enable access from the adjoiningbuildings. 2.Existing structures: Tennis pavilion -120' x 240'Metal buildings (connected) -120' x 176'120 X 176 1 Engineering Comments: Dedicate right-o f-way and improve Peckerwood Road to collector standards. Submit engineering plans for the street improvements to the City Engineer for re view. '•°'-'. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 -File No. 372 -Continued c.Analysis: Staff's only concern relates to parking. There appearsto be only a small area for parking relative to theamount of expansion going on. This site was alsoconsidered by the Board of Adjustment a year ago foraddition of the tennis pavilions. Staff requests that the applicant provide moreinformation regarding the existing parking spaces andattendance and maximum use of the facility at any giventime. D.Staff Recomm endation: Staff reserves comment until information is provided. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Commission. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan that included the total ownership of the property, including the recently purchased three acres to the west, provide some indication of future parking plans and figu res on existing and proposed membership. He agreed to comply with these requests and file a rezoning application to "AF." Engineering stated that improvements on Pecker wood should be built at this stage. The applicant indicated a desire to provide the improvements through an improvement district. Water Works Comments: An 8" water main extension will be required to the west end of the swimming pool for adequate fire protection. PLANNING COMMISSION ACT ION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Chris Barrier represented the develo per. He reported that there would be an addition of 75 parking spaces. He requested that he be allowed to construct improvements after the pool is completed in July and that the permit for the pool be conditioned upon the completion of the improvements. It was also agreed that a tri-party would be executed stating that the City could use the money if improvements are not in by November 30th. A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to the agreement. The vote: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: West 11th Street Conditional Use Permit (Z-4395-A) LOCATION: East of the no rtheast co rner of West 11th Street and Lewis Streets (4118 West 11th Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Curtistene Barnes PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit on property that was rezoned to "O-1" (2-26-85), which would allow the continuation of a beauty shop (reported as a violation). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1 • 2. 3. 4. Site Location It fronts on a residential street (West 11th Street). Compatibility with Neighborhood This property lies in a mixed use area. Single family uses lie adjacent on the no rth and east, with a commercial on the south, and an office use on the west. An office use is comp atible with the surrounding area. On-Site Drives and Parking One gravel drive provides access to the single family home from West 11th Street. The plan proposes parking behind the single family structure with access to be taken from the alley. Screening and Buffers None submitted. 5.Analysis The staff has supported the rezoning to "O-1" and doesnot feel that the adjacent properties will be adverselyaffected. The staff does have some concerns about theapplicant's parking proposal. Two paved parking ·----- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 -Continued spaces are required. The alley, as it currently exists, will not provide adequate access. The applicant will be required to meet City land scape requirements. Engineering Requirements: The parking, as pro posed on this plan, will be very difficult to access from the alley. The applicant ne eds to discuss the parking and access plan with the City En gineer's office. 6.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval, subject to the applicantagreeing to: (1) meet City landscape requirements;(2)pave two parking spaces; and (3) meet with the CityEngineer to revise the site plan for access andparking. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There was a lengthy dis cussion about a possible parking arrangement. The Committee fe lt that if the applicant agreed to use only the existing facility for the beauty shop (without any expansion) that existing on-site parking would be sufficient. The app licant agreed to comply with the Subdivision Committee's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 application as reviewed by recommended by staff. There were no ob jectors. The noes, 2 absent to approve the the Subdivision Committee and April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Greater Center Star Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4420) LOCATION: The southeast corner of Izard and West Short 32nd Street (822 West Short 32nd Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Greater Center Star Baptist Churc h/Raymond Branton PROPOSAL: To construct a new church (capacity 525) (13,362 square feet) adjacent to the existing church building. Once constructed, the existing church building will be removed. The site is zoned "R-4." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1 . 2. 3. Site Location This site abuts two residential streets (Izard and West Short 32nd Street). Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is currently being used as a church. The proposal will enhance the existing area (single family) in that old structures will be removed and ad ditional parking will be constructed. The proposed use is compatible wit h the existing area. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to construct 60 parking spaces. The main site will take ac cess from an alley (adjacent sout h) and 2 accesses lo cated on Short 32nd Street. 4.Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing screening and landscaping. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 -Continued 5.Analysis The staff is supportive of this proposal. Staff does,however, have a few concerns. The ordinance requires105 paved parking spaces, while the applicant hasproposed only 60 spaces. The staff would like theparking to be constructed simu ltaneous to the buildingconstruction as to minimize the inconvenience to theneighborhood. The staff also wants the sidewalksconstructed as shown on the site plan. The applicantalso needs to indicate dimensions of the building anddistances of the building to the property lines. City Engineering Requirements: (1) construct sidewalksas shown on site plan; (2) construct handicapped ramps at the corner of Izard and Short 32nd Street and Izard and West 33rd Street. 6.Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to:(1)construct parking to meet ordinance requirements;(2)construct parking and new sanctuary simultaneously;(3)submit revised site plan, including parking,dimensions of proposed building and the distances ofthe building to the property line; and (4) meet CityEngineering requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all of the staff's recommendations except the parking requirement. The applicant argued that the 60 spaces were adequate to meet the 300 capacity of the sanctuary, and that the choir seating and future balcony should not count toward the parking requirements. A lengthy discussion ensued. The applicant stated that they did have options to purchase additional property. The Su bdivision Committee suggested that the applicant construct the 60 spaces as currently proposed and that when a building permit is issued for Phase II (f inishing of future balcony), 32 additional parking spaces be constructed. The applicant agreed to comply with the Committee's suggestions. ---- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 -Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Commis sion voted 9 ayes, 0 application as reviewed by recommended by staff. There were no objector s. The noes, 2 absent to approve the the Su bdivision Committee and April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: Woodlawn Conditional Use Permit (Z-4424) LOCATION: The nort hwest corner of Woodlawn and Fillmore Streets (5624 Woodlawn Street) OWNER/APPLICANT: Lillie Davidson PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit which would allow the continuation of a duplex use on property that is zoned 11R-3. 11 ( Reported as a violation.) ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. 2. Site Location This site is adjacent to tw o residential streets (Woodlawn and Fillmore Streets). Compatibility with Neighborhood This duplex is an existing use. This site is surrounded by single fa mily uses. The surrounding zoning is 11R-3. 11 The use, as is, does not ap pear to be inco mpatible with the surrounding area. 3.On-Site Drives and Parking One concrete dr ive serves as access and parking.Access is taken from Woodlawn Avenue. 4.Screening and Buffers None submitted. 5.Analysis The staff is not opposed to this request. The st affhas some concern about calling this property a duplexuse. It is a question of definition. Ordinancerequires three paved pa rking sp aces for a duplex. The applicant also needs to meet City la ndscape requirements. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 -Continued City Engineering Comments: None. 6.Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (l} submit a revised si te plan that meets Ordinance par king requirements: and (2} meet City landscape requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applic ant was present. A lengthy dis cussion ensued about the definition of a du plex use. It was dis covered through the dis cussion that the applicant had three kitchens and two boarders. The Committee, after another lengthy discussion, sugges ted to the applicant that she el iminate one boarder to remain a duplex use and that the cond itional use permit be al lowed only as long as she owned and occ upied the property. The applicant ag reed to comply with the Committee's suggestion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There was one ob jector (Linda Jones). The staff stated that three letters were received regarding this application. Mrs. Jones' letter (610 North Fillmore} stated that she opposed the use, as well as the conditional use per mit. Ms. Fran Widner's letter (623 North Fillmore} stated that she was opposed to the proposed conditional use permit. Mr. Carl and Mrs. Louise Brown's letter (521 North Fillmore} stated that they favored the use and the proposed conditional use permit. A lengthy dis cussion ensued as to whether the proposal really was a duplex. Mrs. Davidson stated that one boarder li ved in her house but that no one lived in the frame stru ctu re in the rear of her house. Mr. Jerry Davis spoke in Ms. Davidson's behalf. The City Attor ney stated that he felt that this use was not a duplex si nce no one lived in the rear structu re. A lengthy dis cussion ensused. The Commission fel t that there was not a need for a conditional use permit and voted 9 ayes, O noes and 2 absent to dismiss the application. '...__ April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: South Johnson Street Conditional Use Permit (Z-4427) LOCATION: The west side of South Johnson Street just south of 25th St. (2502 South Johnson) OWNER/APPLICANT: Joseph Lawrence PROPOSAL: To obtain a co nditional use permit which would al low a duplex use on property that is zoned "R-3." (Reported as a viol at ion.) ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: l. 2. 3. 4 . 5. Site Location This property fr onts on a re sidential street (South Johnson Street). Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is surrounded on three sides by single family uses. A duplex use is adjacent to the east. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing access and parking from South Johnson Street. Screening and Buffers None proposed. Analysis The staff su pports a duplex use in this area. The staff does, however, have some concerns. The staff supports this conditional use permit only on the condition that the structure is brought up to meet City building codes. The parking plan must also be re vised to inclu de three paved parking spaces (off-street). The ap plicant will also be required to meet City landscaping requirements. -- ·-- April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 -Continued City Engineering Comments: The ap plicant needs to submit a parking plan to the City Tr affic Engineer. 6.Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval, pr ovided the applicantagrees to: (1) meet City building codes; (2) meet Citylandscape requirements; (3) pave three parking spaces; and (4) submit a parking plan to the City Engineer. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that he intended to meet building codes. The staff stated that item #1 did not have to be included in this ap plication and that the property would ha ve to meet City building codes prior to its receiving a certificate of oc cupancy. The City Engineer stated that the one existing paved parking space could be used toward meeting the parking requirements, but that the applicant would be re quired to pave the two additi onal spaces on Johnson Street. The ap plicant agre ed to comply. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 application as reviewed by recommended by staff. There were no objectors. The noes, 2 absent to approve the the Subdivision Committee and Ap ril 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 -Street Right-of-Way Abandonment NAME: Innsbrook Circle LOCATION: South of Hu ron Lane in the Charles Valley Subdivision OWNER/APPLICANT: Steve Hansen and Max Hooper By: Gregory Simmons PROPOSAL: To abandon all of the existing right-of-way of Innsbrook Circle including the cul-de-sac. STAFF REVIEW: 1.Public Need for this Right-of-Way This street has not been used by the public in serviceto adjacent lots since construction in the mid 1970's.All of the abutting lots are vacant. 2.Master Street Plan There are no Master Street Plan issues. 3.Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets All adjacent public streets are of recent dedicationand construction. They are in conformance withordinance. 4.Characteristics of the Right-of-Way Terrain The street is generally flat ending in a conventionalcul-de-sac. Physical improvements are in placeincluding curb, gutter and underground drainage. 5.Development Potential The adjoining land area is a standard officesubdivision plat which has been proposed for replattingas a single lot and developed for a single user. 6.Neighborhood Land Use and Effect All of the abutting properties are developed asresidential on the south. Office and commercial uses lie to the east, north and west. There are some adjacent lots that are vacant. This abandonment should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. '--· April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 -Continued 7.Neig hborhood Position None expressed at this writing. We do not expectcommunication from neighbors inasmuch as thepetitioners represent all of the abutting properties onthis street. 8.Effect on Public Services or Utilities Five basic utilities have endorsed the abandonment. 9.Reversionary Rights The petitioner will receive the entire right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff review of this request was brief due to the status of the abutting lands and the eminent replatting of the entire subdivision. The only item of interest connected with this plat is the SO-foot buffer strip zoned "R-2" Single Family adjacent to Walnut Valley. This strip of land was placed along the south boundary of this office plat to provide for the permanent greenbelt. Some of that greenbelt has been removed and it is the intention of the staff to gain some replatting and protection of the strip when dealing with the plat. Staff recommends approval of the abandonment conditioned upon a subdivision plat being filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and stated that he was willing to accept the recommendation of staff. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the proposal. A motion was made to recommend approval of the abandonment subject to the comments in the staff recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: John T. Rogers McKinney & Company 5707 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-1190 STAFF REPORT: Riversedge Add ition -Bill of Assurance Amendment Lots 2, 3 and 4, Riversedge Addition to the City of Little Rock This is a request by the applicant to amend an existing Bill of Assurance that was approved in September of 1978. Modifications will: (1) delete a provision concerning the size of animals kept on the properties, and replace it with the standard livestock and poultry clause; (2) delete the names of the original owners of the property since they no longer have any interest in the property. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has no objections to the amendments. The Bill of Assurance has been submitted for Commission review of the changes only because it does not have a disclaimer clause, which releases the Commission from review of any items that do not relate to the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 -Master Street Pl an Amendment -The Refinement of the Chicot-University Avenue Interchange The City Engineering Department has been working with the State Highway Department to develop plans for a revised University-Chicot Avenue connection to reduce traffic congestion and accidents at the Geyer Springs-State Highway 338 interchange and drastically cut the number of accidents at University Avenue by eliminating Wanda Lane. The new design should have a significant effect on traffic flow in southwest Little Rock. We anticipate that a detailed (surveyed) alignment will be forthcoming, but we recommend that we begin the process by putting this conceptual drawing on the Master Street Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Don Mcchesney made a presentation of the amendment. He explained that this amendment is a result of a study undertaken by PATS. The study verified a need for the connection between University and Chicot Road. He explained that the existing interchange is very dangerous in its present condition. Jim Lawson stated that a detailed engineer alignment will be added to the Master Street Plan at a later date through an addendum. He felt that this "corridor" alignment should be added now and that the detail alignment will be forthcoming. Jack Riggs of J.A. Riggs Tractor Company had some comments concerning the planned amendment. He supported parts of the redesign, but was concerned about the cost and the impact on his future development plans. Mr. Riggs showed the Planning Co mmission a drawing of his future expansion plans. He discussed the location of the creek which he thought was vital to the design concept. Mr. Riggs stated that the plan took in much of his property. He sug gested that some of the right-of-way could come from the railroad and not all from his property. Mr. Mcchesney said that at the appropriate time a solution to Mr. Rigg's problem would be explored. The Planning Commission had some further discussion concerning the planned amendment and then Mr. Massie made a motion. The motion was to add the Chicot Road-Universit y Avenue connection to the Master Street Plan recognizing the Planning Commission has expressed their concern over the impact on Mr. Rigg's property and encouraged staff to work with Mr. Riggs in the future to explore every possible alignment option to lessen the impact on the tractor company. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 -Other Matters/Lot Split Appeal Mr. Robert Richardson, the engineer of record for the Cantrell Place West lot split, was present. Mr. Richardson's presence was to appeal a decision of the Planning staff concerning the filing of a second lot split within the boundary of the first plat filing. The staff maintained in their rejection of Mr. Richardson's second submittal that the second action was not in keeping with the intent of the subdivision regulations. The Commission briefly discussed the matter. It was determined that a proper response by the Planning Commission could not be offered without a full review and staff report; therefore, no action was taken, but a motion was made and passed for setting a public hearing date on April 30, 1985. A motion was passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 -Other Matters/Legal Action Notice The City Attorney, Mr. Mark Stodola, made a brief presentation on the legal action filed against the Planning Commission by the developers of the Forest Hill Subdivision. Mr. Stodola responded to questions of the Commission and asked for directions as to whether the Commission desired that he accept service on the action. In further discussion of the matter, the Commission determined that the City Attorney should accept a notice and take the appropriate steps. No vote or formal action was required or taken. -----· April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: Capitol View Mini-Warehouses West 2nd Street at West Markham and Battery LOCATION: APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: Mr. Roger Mears/Eddie Branton A.Site History At the March public hear ing, a replat was approved onthis site. At that time, the Commission approveddeferment of street improvements until the site planwas reviewed. B.Proposal c. 1.The construction of a mini-warehouse project on5.64 acres. 2.Project data: Mark Size Area A 225' X 30 1 6,750 sq. ft. B 200' X 30' 6,000 sq. ft. C 150' X 30' 4,500 sq. ft. D 100' X 30' 3,000 sq. ft. E 75' X 40' 3,000 sq. ft. F 250' X 30' 7,500 sq. ft. G 225' X 30' 6,750 sq. ft. H 250' X 30' 7,500 sq. ft. I 300' X 3 0' 9,000 sq. ft. J 350' X 30' 10,500 sq. ft. K 350' X 30' 10,500 sq. ft. L 310' X 30' 9,300 sq. ft. 84,300 sq. ft. Staff Analysis Both the Fire Department and Water Works have submitted comments. Staff is not opposed to the project. April 9, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 -Continued D.Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to street imp rovements required byEngineering. E.Subdivision Committee Review F. The application was passed to the Commission. Planning Commission Action : The applicant was present. There were no objec tors.The item was discussed by the Planning Co mmission andit was determined that notices should be sent out tothe surrounding area, including the State Capitol,since the project had such a vi sual impact on the area.The plan was reported to be in conformance with theordinance, technically. A motion was made to defer the item for two weeks so that notices could be sent out. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. DATE ()pri I 1/ I 985 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ·-·SUBDIVISION -uY;. f, �MEMBER J.r •1-inJ.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sh>es J.Nicholson W.Rector W.Ketcher D.Arnett 0.J. Jones I.Boles J� Clayton ._/AYE • NAYE ., A B C I 2.. 3 4-5 / v ,//' v /v V / v i/v / / y / v v / i/ j/ / y / / ,/ / ,/ v v t/ A r--... 1----i...-- / / / / / v / v v / / / / v / v / v ,/ / v v v t,/ A I/ I'-----v / ,/ / / / / vv / y / i/ v v � AABSENT �ABSTAIN �7 8 9 10 �� I�v v' / j/ ,/ �v t/ / j/ 7 � v Yi t/ / / / v �v / / / y / I� J/ . r---.......------� lJJ t--.. v / v / / �y t/ /· v / v ()/ i/ / t/ / v �/ L-----... L--,--r-,..___ t/ v v' t/ / <) Av / // t/ � A ) j,� �� �v �u V v J/ v A A v V A----t--- t/ v V V. v' v r--_ -IAA A A A ) There being no further business before the Board, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 P.M. Cha' rson Secre ary Date