Loading...
pc_01 14 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 14, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 11 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. III. Members Present: John Schlereth Richard Massie Chairman William Ketcher Jerilyn Nicholson Fred Perkins Bill Rector Betty Sipes Jim Summerlin Ida Boles Dorothy Arnett David Jones IV. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION TENATIVE SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ITEMS January 14, 1985 DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Seamon "Short -Form" PRD B. Mallard Building Line Waiver C. Kingsrow Drive Right -of -Way Abandonment ,nnvT T.I TLT 7I PV TT 71 mn. 1. Marlowe Manor, Phase II 2. Oxford Valley Addition 3. Signature Subdivision r%r TLTLTLiT rtia rm TLn[7L'lr r%r%hs L7LTm. 4. 520 Place Replat/ "Short -Form" PRD (Z -4589) 5. Hinson Loop Center PCD (Z -4591) SITE PLAN REVIEW: 6. Security Storage Revised Plan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 7. Ati Day Yisroel - C.U.P. (Z- 2840 -A) 8. Bill Fitts Auto Sales - C.U.P. (Z- 4538 -A) 9. Oxford Valley - C.U.P. (Z -4592) OTHER MATTERS: 10. Rudy's Sausage - C.U.P. (Z -4413) 11. Alley in Block 81, John Barrow Addition 12. All Electric Building Line Waiver 13. High Street /Street Name Change 14. Tri -Party Agreement /Ordinance Amendment 15. Alley in Block 277, Original City of Little Rock January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - File No. 597 NAME: Seamon "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4522) LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and Shadowlake DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Merlin Seamon Merlin Seamon 209 1/2 W. 2nd St. 209 1/2 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -6092 Phone: 372 -6092 AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" to "PRD" PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes A. Site History This property has been platted as Lots 1 -16, Block 4, Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. B. Developmental Concept 1. The construction of rental units which will appeal primarily to senior citizens and the handicapped; however, tenants will not be limited to these groups. 2. To develop the property at a density that would be similar if developed as single family. 3. To design the units like single family residences and the color as earth tones in order that they blend into the wooded environment. 4. To preserve the natural beauty of the site. C. Proposal 1. The construction of 22 units and 8 triplex structures on three acres. 2. The replatting of 16 lots into one lot. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 3. Development Statistics (a) Unit No. Unit Type 24 2 (b) Parking provided consists of 36 off - street spaces. D. Engineering Comments 1. Detention required. 2. One north /south street to be left open. E. Analysis The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the structures, between the structures and between structures and property lines. There is an existing right -of -way through the property. Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required because of the reduction in lots and right -of -way abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the design of those stalls backing into the internal drive. A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be required where adjacent to residential zoning. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as they were since the internal drive was not a public street. Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved, especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their request of a larger cul -de -sac radius. Water Works - On -site fire lines and fire hydrants may be required. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the staff requesting a 30 -day deferral. Staff reported that the letter was sent within the required time period. Several residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically unopened but provided access to land that he owned. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that Mr. Seamon had requested deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 15 -85) A motion for deferral as requested by the applicant was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. Seamon reported that he was unable to get the cooperation of abutting landowners for the closure of Farris Street and he couldn't afford to build the street due to its location down a drainage way. He requested a waiver of street improvements. The Committee advised him to meet with Engineering regarding the request. The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan demonstrating the redesign of the project without the land area from the street closure. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 12 -85) The applicant,was present. Due to the problem the applicant was experiencing, a motion for a 60 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86) Since the applicant was not present, there was no review of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86) A motion to withdraw this request was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. u January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Mallard Building Line Waiver LOCATION: East Palisades Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Rod Mallard Olan D. Wilson 7423 W. 12th 210 S. Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72201 664 -2090 375 -7222 REQUEST: Encroachment into an established building setback area. A. Existing Conditions This project is located in an area composed of single family homes. B. Development Proposal This is a proposal for modification of an existing building line to accommodate a proposed carport. The eaves of the carport will set back 4 feet from the property line and the columns will set back 8 feet. C. Engineering Comments None. D. Analysis Staff is unwilling to support the application as filed; however, support will be given to a single wide carport with no more than a 2 foot or 3 foot extension beyond the building line. Also, staff recommends the paving of a single lane only, instead of the whole front yard. E. Staff Recommendation Denial of the application as filed. January 14, 1986 ~` SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that the waiver was necessary due to a dire need for off street parking, since persons in the area did a lot of entertaining. He was asked to notify his neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission decided that the application should be deferred or withdrawn depending upon what contact with the applicant revealed. The motion was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86) Staff reported that the applicant had requested withdrawal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86) Lr A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Street Right-of-Wav Abandonment NAME: Kingsrow Drive Partial Parallel Closure LOCATION: North of Cantrell Road OWNER /APPLICANT: Lois R. Coulson REQUEST: To abandon an 11 -foot parallel strip along an 80 -foot existing dedicated right -of -way in order to join with an existing service station site STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way The existing 80 -foot right -of -way was established in the 1950s in order to provide for a sufficiently wide entrance to a very large subdivision lying to the north. This street is the only point of adequate access to a large segment of the Pine Valley Kingwood community. The 80 -foot right -of -way is in excess of that normally required for a collector street except that in this instance a designed intersection with left and right turn lanes may be required in the future if this intersection is signalized. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan does not provide for a listing of this street as other than a residential street. However, it has existed as an unspecified street on the City's plan for at least 25 years. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets The only deficient right -of -way abutting this petitioner's property is Cantrell Road. It is our understanding at this time that additional right -of -way dedication has been requested by the Public Works Department in their review of the building permit. January 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued 4. Characteristics of the Right -of -Way Terrain The existing right -of -way and physical improvements are of moderate to flat grade in the area of petitioner's property. The street does, however, fall sharply to the north and east immediately beyond this site. 5. Development Potential If abandoned, this narrow strip of land would serve only the use of the adjacent gasoline retailer. It would possibly provide some additional on- street parking or maneuver space for that use. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect At this time, no adverse effect is evident except that the potential for pavement widening to accommodate better traffic movement. 7. Neighborhood Position There has been no response from the neighborhood at this time. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities The replies from our contact agencies indicate that utility companies desire retention of this strip for utility easement purposes. We are also advised that some utility poles are located in the right -of -way in such a fashion as they would have to be moved if this segment of right -of -way became private property. 9. Reversionary Rights Inasmuch as this is a parallel abandonment, the abandoned portion would revert to the owner on the west side which is this applicant. January 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff in its review of this proposal and a recently filed Board of Adjustment variance application have determined that the development proposal as a package is inappropriate. That includes this abandonment. We would not encourage the loss of this right -of -way given the circumstances of this access point to a large residential area. This petition is one of very few of this type which has been filed in recent years. Most of these kinds of petitions deal with returning excess right -of -way in those instances where the adjacent properties are physically impacted by drainage utility easements or an excess taking in the beginning. In those instances where staff has supported the abandonment of a parallel segment, it has not been on a collector or arterial street. In this instance, we see no benefit to the public to trade off 11' of this street to gain right -of -way on Cantrell Road. We view the dedication on Cantrell Road as a conventional requirement of development. The staff, therefore, recommends denial of this petition. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff offered its recommendation and additional commentary on the proposal including information concerning an allied Board of Adjustment application. The applicant was present, Mr. Coulson, who offered justification for his proposal. A lengthy discussion of the issued followed. It was suggested by Planning Commissioners that with the appearance of redevelopment of this property, that perhaps it would be appropriate to defer this petition until such time as a site plan could be offered which would be justification for the abandonment. A motion was then made to defer this item to January 14, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 14 -86) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Commission was advised that the applicant apparently required additional time to complete his design proposal. It was suggested that withdrawal would be appropriate. The Commission by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent voted to withdraw this item from further �.- consideration. 'I. -- January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: Marlowe Manor - Phase 5 Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: South of Hinson Road and East off Morrison Drive nRVRT.nPRR - RWaTWRRR Rector - Phillips- Morse, Inc. Edward G. Smith and Associates P.O. Box 7300 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 664 -7807 Phone: 374 -1666 AREA: 6.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 280 ZONING: "R -2" Single Family District PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: (1) Fifteen -foot building lines. (2) Private street. A. Existing Conditions The area of this plat is wooded, steeply sloping terrain. A prior preliminary plat authorized a layout much like the plan proposed. However, that plan contained fewer lots., B. Development Proposal To restructure the previous preliminary platted lots so as to provide for a new lot numbered 291 and to be located at the north end of a private 20' street. This private street would serve four lots and be less than 200' in length. All of the lots in this plat would have 15' building setback lines in place of the required 25'. This is due to the natural grades back of the curb. The ordinance provides that on lots with 18 percent or greater natural grade that a 15' setback is appropriate. Specific lots that meet this requirement are not noted. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued C. Engineering Comments No adverse comment. D. Analysis T This proposal presents nothing new in development of land within this subdivision. The,Marlowe Manor plat currently contains pipe stem lots and private streets that appear to function quite well. The only issue we noted in our review consists of: (1) Extension of fire hydrant and proper line sizes on the private street as required. (2) Access to the water tank site to the northwest should be clearly identified. (3) Lot frontage on Lots 292 and 290 should be greater than the apparent 121. E. Staff Recommendation Approved, subject to resolution of the three items noted above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant addressed the identified issues. He stated that the existing easement to the water tank site would be paved as the project developed, he would adhere to Water Works comments and the private drive would be extended with frontage to consist of 18 feet. Water Works - Maximum floor elevation of any house is 695 t.' : Caution on Lots 291 -294. A pro -rata charge plus an acreage charge will apply. Easement required as shown. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: In agenda session, which is held before the Public Hearing, Mr. Bob Richardson reminded the Commission that they had denied his plat in Hillsborough Subdivision due to a restriction on development above 695 feet. He pointed out that the Water Works Department had not identified this as an issue in this submission. He was told to resubmit his plat, since it appeared that the restriction had been lifted. The applicant was present at the Public Hearing. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to specifications of maximum floor elevation to 695 feet in the Bill of Assurance was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Rector abstained). January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: General Properties Lakewood House 4801 North Hills Blvd. NLR, AR Phone: 753 -3455 Basil Shoptaw Oxford Valley Addition Preliminary Plat South End of Appomattox Drive (Shiloh Subdivision) ENGTNEER: Thomas Engineering 3810 Lookout Road NLR, AR 72116 Phone: 753 -4463 AREA: 39.41 acres NO. OF LOTS: 152 FT. NEW ST.: 6,900 L.F. ZONING: "R -2" Single Family District PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions This site is wooded, gently rolling terrain surrounded by single family uses on the north, east and west sides. The plat is a continuation of the existing subdivision lying to the east which runs to Chicot Road. B. Development Proposal To place 152 single family lots in an area developed as single family with conventional design of streets and utility systems. C. Engineering Comments (1) Stormwater detention required preferably on the reserved area and Lots 19 and 20. (2) Change the following street names as shown: Cockney Lane to Cockney Circle, Scotland Drive to Scotland Circle, Claybrook Road to Claybrook Circle. January 14, 1986 �-' SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued D. Analysis The staff review of this plat reveals only three issues for resolution. These are that the radius on each of the several circle streets appears short of the ordinance requirement of 75' to the centerline. This is the minor street standard. If it is not in conformance, modification should be made. If conformity is provided, it should so be noted. The second item is the need to identify on the plat the intended use of the reserved tract and provide a tract number. Third, comment from the owner to the south suggests that a stub street may be in order to avoid landlocked parcels. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of the items in the staff and engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to address staff's comments. There was also a discussion on a request for an additional stub street by•a bordering property owner. The applicant was asked to submit a written statement from the property owner stating no desire for another stub out. The applicant explained that the reserved tract would be a neighborhood park and potential stormwater site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors; however, Mr. Bob Richardson represented the property owner to the south. Staff recommended approval, subject to submission of: (1) a revised plat reflecting the use of the reserve tract and conformity to Ordinance requirements for radii; and (2) resolution of any access issues among abutting property owners and Public Works. A motion for approval, subject to comments made was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Signature Subdivision LOCATION: NE Corner of West Markham Street at Chester Street Running North to La Harpe Boulevard nEVEMPER: RWnTNFRR _ Signature Life Ins. Co. Allison Moses Redden 1130 Savers Federal Bldg. Heritage Center East Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Phone: 372 -3355 Phone: 375 -0378 AREA: 0.7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "I -2" Light Industrial District PROPOSED USE: Office Building for Signature Life Insurance and Others VARIANCES REQUESTED: Requested reduction of setbacks from the "I -2" standard to the "0 -3" requirements which will generally eliminate 50' building line requirements. A. Existing Conditions A gentle slope that has been cleared of structures and natural foliage. The site is platted in residential size lots with three lots fronting on West Markham Street and three partial lots on La Harpe Boulevard. An alley bisects the ownership and provides access to businesses on the east end of the alley. B. Development Proposal (1) To abandon the alley and recombine it with the adjacent lots for a single user. (2) Recombine the lots as a single platted lot for office usage for a single structure. Off - street parking would be provided in the area of the Markham Street frontage with the building extending across the alley portion of the block. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued C. Engineering Comments No adverse comment. D. Analysis The subject properties have been cleared of structures for several years. Redevelopment has been hampered by the shallow depth of the north parcel and the alley which bisects the block. The alley becomes the significant issue for resolution of this plat. A petition for abandonment has not been filed at this writing which would draw other owners into this platting matter. This should be accomplished to avoid the appearance of avoidance of the single most important issue in this block. As to the request for "0-3" setbacks as proposed, we have no concerns in this area because most of the area buildings are offices and provide little or no setbacks. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the replat as proposed, subject to resolution of the alley issue. We also recommend approval of the building line to "0 -3" standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant stated that a petition to close the noted alley has been filed. Objectors are expected to be present at the Public Hearing. Water Works - A main extension is required in the easement along the east side of the alley property before main in alley can be abandoned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The only issue discussed involved the alley closure (see minutes to item 15). A motion for deferral for 30 days was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: LOCATION: nFURT.NDPR Z nururmFrm. 520 Place - (Short Form) Z -4589 Planned Residential District 520 East 21st Street ENC,TNF.ER Prosperity Investment T.G. Burriss Realty for Thedford Collins 1617 Battery Street 1317 South Summit Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 376 -9757 AREA: .30 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1.5 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R -4" Two Family District - Proposed Change to "PRD" Planned Residential District PROPOSED USE: Multifamily A. Development Objectives To utilize an existing residence and a proposal to place a total of four units on this site. This proposal will provide a density of approximately 13 units per acre. This is little more than a duplex density in which district is the neighborhood base zone. A parking area consisting of seven stalls will be constructed off the alley with access to either Commerce or Park Lane. The units will consist of 800 to 950 square feet with exteriors of the building compatible with the neighborhood, that is wood frame with aluminum or vinyl siding. B. Development Schedule This project is proposed for a January 1986, start on construction with 90 days projected to completion. C. Engineering Comments No adverse comment. .1� January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued D. Analysis This project is viewed by staff as good for the neighborhood. The density is not a problem inasmuch as most of East 21st Street is nonresidential in nature. The area contains numerous duplexes and is generally renter occupied. The several concerns we have are: (1) Our records do not reflect a dedicated alley in the block nor does the survey reflect such an alley. Therefore, the owner must have an abstract search performed to assure a dedication; otherwise, the project will not work. (2) The alley or easement however based must be paved to an all weather surface to either Park Lane on the east or Commerce Street on the west. This pavement should be 20' in width. (3) We feel that the existing residence should be either modified or moved to the west in order to accommodate a minimum of 10' of structural separation. (4) The new lot line on the east side of this project should be in the center of that 10' separation. (5) The west property setback should be at least 5' in this redesign. (6) Pave all parking spaces and comply with the Landscape Ordinance. (7) Property line fences should be a minimum of 6' in height and opaque. The fences should stop at the front line of the buildings. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the project subject to resolution of Items 1 -7 above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The proposal was discussed. The applicant agreed to get an abstract search on the status of the alley. The applicant agreed to comply with the concerns expressed by staff. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Ms. Betty Turner, Agent, and Mr. Thedford Collins, Developer, were in attendance. There were no objectors. Staff stated its support for modification of the existing building so that there is at least a 10 -foot separation. The applicant requested to withdraw his agreement to modify the building, be allowed to continue using an area designated as an alley on a 1950 plat as such and that he be allowed to have a zero -lot line /fire wall on the east property line. The Commission felt that fire was a concern with the location of the buildings in such close proximity; however, it was felt that the fire wall was a good trade -off. A motion was made for approval, subject to: (1) Information on use of the alley /easement recorded on the plat; (2) Maintenance easement between the two structures; (3) Staff approval of parking; (4) Fire wall meeting approval of code department. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: A Commercial Center - PCD Short -Form LOCATION: Hinson Loop Road at Hinson Road - SE Corner nRVRLOPRR: RNGTNERR Hinson Loop Partnership Summerlin and Associates by James F. Williams 1609 Broadway #4 Shackleford Plaza Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 376 -1323 Phone: 224 -1900 AREA: 2.0 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "0 -3" General Office District - Proposed Change to "PCD" Planned Commercial District PROPOSED USE: Retail Shops, Personal Services and Offices VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Development Objectives To construct a 23,200 square foot business and retail center with 87 parking spaces (64 is the base requirement without the restaurant count which is unknown at this time). The project is a joint effort with the corner property owner, which lot is proposed for a savings and loan site. There are cross easements proposed which will permit efficient use of both the sites. The developer has offered a use list which is generally retail in nature but includes a mix of office and personal service uses. The separate partnerships are committed to this list and will execute documents for recording to reflect their commitment. The buildings proposed are one -story with 19 tenant lease areas. Landscaping and signage to comply with ordinance standards. B. Development Schedule A specific proposal has not been submitted. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued C. Eng,ineeripg Comments (1) Boundary street improvements required on Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road per Master Street Plan. (2) Hinson Loop Road is required to be three lanes from Hinson Road south 100 feet then transition to the current stfeet. (3) Hinson Road is required at 48'; therefore, two lanes south of the centerline are required. (4) Check with the Traffic Engineer for redesign of the entrance on to Hinson Road as more stacking distance is required. (5) Omit three parking spaces in the southeast corner. These create a blind corner. (6) Increased turning radius at the northeast corner is required for the rear service drive. D. Analysis The review of this project revealed a good site plan, aesthetically pleasing and well- suited to the site with some modifications. However, the use mix is incompatible with the adopted land use plan for this area. That plan proposes that all properties along the south side of Hinson Road be limited to office usage. Therefore, the only option staff views available is to develop the center as office use only. E. Staff Recommendation Denial of the Planned Commercial District with the usage as proposed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The major issue was identified as land use. Staff explained that the City Board established a line limiting usage to office along the south side of Hinson Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 527 -C NAME: Security Storage Revised Site Plan LOCATION: I -30 APPLICANT: Chuck Ruskus STAFF REPORT: This is a request to revise an approved site plan by adding two buildings: (1) a 50' x 1601, (2) a 40' x 120' for use as warehouse /storage space, and (3) revising the location of the parking area for the RV's. Staff has no problems with the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the item was not reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for deferral of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan that showed a 10 -foot minimum separation between buildings and gain Fire Chief approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11- 12 -85) By request of the applicant, a motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Since the applicant was not present, the item was not reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 17 -85) Since the applicant was not present, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued STAFF UPDATE A revised plan has been presented which provides for the 10' minimum building separation but does not provide a use breakdown on the various structures and does not reflect the parking provisions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (1 -3 -86) The applicant was present. He identified the use as office warehouse for commercial businesses. He was asked to get with staff and provide enough data so that parking requirements could be determined. PLANNING COMMISSIQJN ACTION: A motion for withdrawal as requested by the applicant was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: Ati Day Yisroel Conditional Use Permit (Z- 2840 -A) LOCATION: West of the intersection of Rodney Parham Road and Rocky Valley Drive (3700 N. Rodney Parham Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Ati Day Yisroel /Emily M. Lewis To bring into conformance an existing church and a day -care center which currently cares for 36 children, on land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial on the east (Rodney Parham Road), and two residential streets (Valley Club Circle - South and Doral Drive - West). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The church and day -care center are existing uses. A school is located to the north, with single family uses adjacent on the remaining three sides. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This property is served by two existing access drives (Valley Club Circle and Rodney Parham Road) and approximately 87 parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers This site is heavily wooded and well screened from the surrounding area. 5. Analysis The staff has no problem with this proposal. The site plan should be revised to include an existing drive on Valley Club Circle and to change Pine Crest Lane to Valley Club Circle (as it is on the ground). January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 6. Engineering Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval subject to the previous comments. CTTQnT17TCT(lA7 1 nMMTTTL'F 1DLX7TFW. The applicant was not present. The staff stated that the applicant had requested that their item be deferred until the February 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting due to a problem with their notification procedures. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to defer this application until the February 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Bill Fitts Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (Z- 4538 -A) The northwest corner of State Highway #5 and Crystal Valley Road (8424 Stagecoach Road) William R. Fitts To convert an existing 1,000 square feet building to an automobile service shop, to construct a 1,000 square feet office building, 54 paved parking spaces, and to obtain a conditional use permit which would allow for an automobile display, sales and service on 3 plus or minus acres of land that is zoned "C -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a minor arterial (Crystal Valley Road - East) and a major arterial (Stagecoach Road - South). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed use will be located on three acres out of a total ownership of 10 acres. The site is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. The site is surrounded by vacant land on the north and south, a church on the east, and a single family use on the west. The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible due to: the size of the parcel; the fact that the land is zoned "C -2;" and the fact the parcel fronts on a major and a minor arterial. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking There are two proposed access drives (State Highway 5 and Crystal Valley Road) and a paved area (54 spaces) for parking. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing a screening fence on the west and north of the auto sales area. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff supports the proposed use on this site. The staff does, however, need a revised site plan that includes specific dimensions of buildings, driveways, etc. The site plan also should be revised to show a 40 foot undisturbed buffer (no parking) from State Highway 5 as required by the "C -2" zoning district. 6. City Engineering Comments 1. Construction of three lanes on Crystal Valley is required (1 1/2 lanes adjacent to the applicants property). 2. State Highway 5 is required to be constructed to four lanes (two lanes adjacent to the applicants property). 3. Stormwater detention is required. *NOTE - The applicant is advised that a single family structure is a nonconforming use in a "C -2" zoning district. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes dimensions of buildings, drives, parking, etc., and a 40 foot undisturbed buffer on State Highway 5; and (2) comply with City Engineering Comments numbers 1 -3. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that the 40 -foot area was a front yard setback (no parking allowed) rather than an undisturbed buffer and that the City Engineer required the applicant to construct one -half of four lanes on Crystal Valley and one -half of five lanes on Stagecoach Road. The staff also stated that no auto body work be allowed on this site. The applicant stated that no auto body work would occur. The Water Works required a main extension and also stated that on -site fire protection may be required. The applicant agreed to meet with officials of the Water Works. The applicant also agreed to comply with all staff recommendations but asked that improvements on State Highway 5 be limited to the westerly extent of the current proposed development. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS MEPA Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The Commission reiterated its position of not allowing an auto repair service as a part of this approval. The applicant stated that he would only do minor work on his own automobiles that would be for sale. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Summerlin) to approve the application as recommended by staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Oxford Valley Conditional Use Permit (Z -4592) The northeast corner of Claybrook Road and Courtfield Drive ( #1 Courtfield Drive) General Properties/ Douglas Holstrom To construct a swimming pool, a bath house, and 11 paved parking spaces on land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located adjacent to two residential streets (Claybrook Road - South and Courtfield Drive - West). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is surrounded by single family uses on three sides and vacant land located to the north. This neighborhood recreational facility, developed properly, will be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This proposal contains one access drive ( Courtfield Drive) and 11 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. 5. Analysis The staff has no problem with the proposed use. The applicant does, however, need to submit a landscape plan illustrating the way this screening and landscaping will be used to reduce the impact to the adjacent single family structures. The staff feels that all adjacent single family uses should be screened with an opaque fence on this site. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued 6. City Engineering Comments Stormwater detention is required on either the parking lot or in the swale area south of the parking lot. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) provide an adequate screening and landscaping plan; and (2) comply with City Engineering requirements as previously stated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes to approve the application and noted that the applicant would be required to pave all of Courtfield Drive to the north property line in the next phase of development of this subdivision. January 14, 1986 Subdivision Item No. 10 The applicant came before the Subdivision Committee on January 30, 1986 at which time it was decided that this item did not need to come before the entire Planning Commission. U January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Other Matters NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: All of the Alley in Block 81 of John Barrow Addition Lying between West 28th and West 29th Streets in the block west of Zion Street M.E. Bolding By: W.W. Kelley REQUEST: To abandon all of the alley and join with adjacent lots for replatting. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way None, inasmuch as this alley has never been in use as a street or public way. 2. Master Street Plan There are no requirements. 3. Need for Right- of -Wav on Adiacent Streets West 28th Street is a collector, 36' in pavement and 60' in right -of -way; therefore, 10' of additional right -of -way may be required. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Moderate slope to the south and at grade with the adjoining lots. 5. Development Potential This right -of -way is useful only to the abutting owners and the replatting of these lots. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The abutting properties are occupied by single family in all directions for a distance of several blocks. There remain in the general area several vacant lots. This action should have little or no effect on the neighborhood inasmuch as the alley has not been in use. It will be better utilized as part of the replatting of this block. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities None reported; however, the right -of -way will probably be retained as a utility easement unless the owner or applicant gains total release from the several utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights The alley once closed will revert to the abutting owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this abandonment with a cautionary note to the petitioner that recombining these lots may cause dedication requirements along West 28th Street. This would occur if it is determined that less than 60' in right -of -way exists. Additionally, street improvements along 28th may be assessed if the matter requires Planning Commission review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and offered a discussion of his proposal. The Planning staff added additional commentary. A lengthy discussion followed involving issues attached to a proposed preliminary plat which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in February. At the end of the discussion, it was determined that it would be appropriate to hear the abandonment issue in conjunction with the proposed plat. A motion was made to defer this matter to February 11. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. I--- January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Other Matters - Buildinq Line Waiver NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: All Electric Supply 1301 Westpark Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 376 -3505 All Electric Building Line Waiver By: Doug Beard 1301 Westpark Drive ENGINEER: William F. Williams 210 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 REQUEST: To vary the platted building line to accommodate a building addition with a proposed intrusion ranging from 10' on the east to 24' on the west. This intrusion involves a 40' platted building line. A. Existing Conditions The lot contains a commercial building with some open display and storage on the south side. The building is a recent construction with the appropriate parking and setbacks. B. Development Proposal To add a freestanding building of 75' x 80' for a warehouse and storage usage. The need for a drive -thru between the new and the existing building requires the intrusion into the setback area. C. Engineering Comments The curve in the existing street alignment requires that the 40' setback be maintained for proper site distance. D. Analysis The proposed construction is not a significant problem; however, it is obvious there is a severe restriction by the imposition of a 40' building line parallel to the half cul -de -sac. This building line could be modified with no adverse effect on this block or adjacent properties. January 14, 1986 \--1 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued E." Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the building line waiver in the area of the southeast corner of the proposed building. However, we recommend that the setback from Westpark Drive be maintained. This will require an angular corner on the building. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant had a problem with staff's request to cut a corner off the building due to the need for relocation of a utility line,'which would cause financial hardship. He also was not favorable to Traffic's suggestion that the truck traffic be directed to the rear. The applicant felt that this was not feasible. It was decided that the encroachment into the building setback could be minimized by shifting the building over 10 feet. This would encroach into the side yard, but the abutting use was only a parking lot and would not be �. adversely effective. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan was approved by the Commission. The vote was: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. ME OEM January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Other Matters - Street Name Chance NAME: High Street LOCATION: Between I -630 on the north and West 36th Street on the south OWNER /APPLICANT: Muskie Harris Committee Chairman for Petition REQUEST: To rename South High Street to Martin Luther King Drive in this 2.3 mile segment. ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIPS: The existing High Street intersects four major traffic arteries with commercial centers on each. At the present time, there are 29 business activities, 53 single family dwellings, 23 duplexes, 7 multifamily structures, 6 offices, 1 Little Rock public school and 1 college. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT: The only effect to be experienced from this change will be the disruption of neighborhood mail and services until the new name is recognized by all involved agencies. A short -term effect will be the disruption of the yellow page listings for those several businesses which utilize that advertising. 0OL- Av- Co 5T5 o k 5 w67SS CO u() 13ff WA v& ,v0 A-eAX 4& D F 79AT /S T 77-1/3- iln-sF, NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION: None has been expressed at this writing; however, the publication of the legal ad and posting of notices will undoubtedly introduce some objection especially from the commercial sector. EFFECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: No long -term effect expected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposal with a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Board that the approval resolution take effect a minimum of 30 days after passage. This is required in order to provide sufficient lead time for the Post Office, Public Works Department and the State Highway Department to make the many changes required. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS \_`1 Item No. 13 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee received a report from staff on the financial aspects of the proposed street name change. Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineering Office provided the following information relative to the signs and structures which will require modification. A. PROPOSED CHANGE - FULL NAME - MARTIN LUTHER KING DRIVE City signs, 32 in number, at a cost of $1,190. Additional signage, $390 for a total of $1,480. The cost of installation by City crew, $475 for a subtotal of $2,050. Arkansas Highway Department signs, 11 in number, 2 of which at $60,000, 2 at $3,600, 2 at $3,200, 5 guideway signs at $800 for a subtotal of $67,600 and a grand total for a fully spelled out name $70,000 even. B. AN ABBREVIATED NAME STRUCTURE - M.L. KING,'JR. DRIVE City signs, a total of 32 signs at $800. Fifteen side street signs - $300 for a total of $1,100 in material. Installation at $475 for a subtotal of $1,600. Arkansas State Highway signs, a total of 9 signs, 2 at $2,400, 2 at $2,200, 5 at $500 for a total of $5,100. The grand total of signs in the abbreviated form would be $6,700. C. ALTERNATE STREET NAME PROPOSAL TO AVOID HIGH COST OF SIGN REPLACEMENT The City Engineering's staff and Highway Department offer as an alternate to High Street, changing the name of Battery Street approximately one -half mile to the west which has significant length and also intersects the interstate. The cost of change out on these signs for a fully spelled out name on each sign would be $2,100 for both City and State costs. An abbreviated sign blank for both City and State would be a total of $1,600. The Committee received this information, discussed briefly and made no comment for the record at this time. January 14, 1986 �--'' SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning staff offered a brief overview of the issue at hand offering additional information relative to objection filed since the initial application was submitted. Mr. Muskie Harris was present and made a request of the Commission that this matter be deferred for 30 days or until the February 11 meeting in order to allow the petition signers to develop their case and decide on the street to be chosen for change. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted on a motion for deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Other Matters - Ordinance Amendment REQUEST: Planning Commission review of a staff proposal to amend the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with tri -party agreements and enforcement. PROPOSED TEXT: Attached is the first draft of the proposal for your review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The staff offered an overview of this proposed ordinance amendment identifying the basic changes involved. A brief discussion of the proposal then followed. It was determined by several members that they required sufficient review time in order to digest the material as presented. It was suggested a deferral to February 11 would be in line. A motion for that deferral was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. . � s ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 37 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURAL CHANGES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances be amended as follows: Subsection a. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section 37.35 be amended to provide For the restructuring of the second paragraph and read as follows: One of the following methods will be utilized by the developer to assure that improvements required by these regulations can or will be installed in accordance with approved plans and specifications. The method to be used shall be identified by the subdivider when filing the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission will in every instance determine the appropriateness of the method chosen and may reject or modify the subdivider's proposal. Subsection b. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section 37.35.d be amended to prove a tor the restructuring o item D(2. and .) and to read as o ows: (d) 2. The funds set aside will be disbursed only for the requirements and such additional costs as may be included in the triparty agreement as penalty or administrative. 3. In the event that a subdivider's triparty agreement becomes in default, the funds committed shall be disbursed as directed by the City of Little Rock policy administered by the Public Works Department. This policy is established by policy guideline # Subsection c. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section 37.35.d) be amended to provide tor inclusion of two new subparagraphs titled (d.4. and 5.) and to read as follows: 4. Agreements shall be submitted for staff review in conjunction with the final plat and be accompanied by: (1) a report from the Engineer of Record outlining the estimated construction period and (2) estimates of all cost factors such as: materials, labor, administrative, penalties, engineering. 5. An agreement shall be limited to the time estimate offered by the Engineer of Record and agreed upon by the Public Works Department. The time estimate will include a proposal for periodic status reports to the Public Works Department. Subsection d. That Chapter 37., Article VI, Section 37. be amended to provide for insertion of a new section titled "37.35.l." and to read as follows: Section 37.35.1. -- Improvements Agreement Enforcement (a) In those instances where it has been determined that an agreement is in or near default, a staff review committee shall review the circumstances and determine the appropriate course of action. This course may be: (1) Planning Commission •,� review for time extension, (2) legal action, and (3) initiation of the procedure guidelines etablished by Planning Commission policy. (b) In those instances where a subdivider has exhibited a history of inability to perform as permitted under the assurance provision of this section, the Planning Commission may disallow all but subparagraph a). In the event that the Planning Commission restricts the assurance options of a subdivider, a specific penalty period shall be established but not to exceed two calendar years. L� MEMORANDUM `JCITY OF LITTLE ROCK October 17, 1985 TO: All Interested Parties FROM: Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning Mike Batie, Department of Public Works SUBJECT: Discussion of Establishment of a Procedure Guideline for City Assumption of Responsibility for Completion of Street Improvements The following is a rough outline of the suggested procedure as structured by various City staff members for purposes of initial discussion. The 10 step outline offers the minimum ` levels of involvement upon which we can build a system if such a system is determined appropriate. Step 1 A City staff committee of Engineering and Planning personnel would review a tri -party agreement in its last weeks of term with a view to determining a need to call the instrument as permitted. The staff options would be: a. To request release of funds to the City. b. Request legal action. C. Submit the matter to the Planning Commission for a possible extension of time if a hardship circumstance is evident. Step 2 The staff committee would determine if a call for all or _partial funds would be appropriate. If partial, then the engineer of record for the project would be required to submit a detailed cost estimate of the remaining improvements. The City engineer would have the option of requiring an independent assessment by another engineer. �.. That office would further have the option of making an in -house assessment or both. \--I Step 3 After determining the cost of completion, the proper communication would be forwarded to the depository for purposes of transferring the required funds to a City special account. Step 4 The City would utilize one of several engineers which could be placed on an annual contract to serve as contract engineers on these types of issues as needed. These engineers could be rotated as required to avoid conflicts with client jobs. Step 5 The contract engineer would prepare plans or obtain and review those filed by the developer if such were filed for record. Step 6 The contract engineer would prepare documents for normal bidding procedures /selection procedures. Step 7 After selection of a contractor, work would begin. The contract engineer would make inspections and perform such supervision as identified in the contract. He would coordinate this activity with the Public Works staff. Step 8 The contract engineer would perform final inspections in concert with the Public Works Department staff. The appropriate bonding would be assured. Step ep 9 A letter would be produced by the Public Works Department staff certifying to the record owner that all of the work had been accomplished and accepted by the City for - maintenance. Step 10 A letter would be produced by the Public Works Department staff certifying to the Finance Department that the project was complete and that payment should be made to the appropriate parties. This letter would provide for proper distribution of any fund balance whether to City accounts or to the developer. In addition to the outline development, the staff discussed additional areas of concern. 1. The kinds of changes in the Subdivision Ordinance to support the new procedure: The first change would be in the area of improvements assurance whereby the ordinance would be changed to allow the Planning Commission to control which of the four assurances a developer would use plus discretion as to whether to grant this procedure. Currently, the developer may choose either. The second would be a penalty provision to specifically identify a time period for a loss of certain procedural rights. 2. The kinds of add on cost factors when establishing a cash or tri -party agreement. a. The total contractor's bid price would be the floor price for establishing the add on. b. The first add on would be project administrative costs of the City. This percentage would be fixed at five percent on all agreements. C. The second add on is the contract engineer fee cost. This percentage would be fixed at 10 percent on all agreements. d. The third add on is the contingency or cost overrun from the base bid price. This could be variable, but probably set at 10 percent minimum. 3. The disposition of monies remaining in the depository or City account at conclusion of the project. 4. The establishment of a provision to set the time frame for any agreement. The engineer of record for the owner would include a time factor in his estimate and relate that to weather and size of job. This engineer would also be responsible for a quarterly report on the progress of the project. The elimination of the automatic one year allowable on tri- parties is a necessity. A final comment as to the desirability of this procedure is offered jointly by Planning and Public Works staff. Our feeling is that the cost to the City of Little Rock for adopting this procedure cannot be measured in dollars alone. We feel that although the policy is needed in rare instances, there will be occasions when developers will take advantage of the procedure to accomplish their goals with little or no penalty. Therefore, we urge all participants to closely scrutinize the associated proposed modifications of procedure and ordinance. RW:at5 January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Other Matters Election of officers for the calendar year 1986. The Planning Commission by unanimous vote elected Mr. William Ketcher as Chairman for the calendar year 1986 and by unanimous vote elected Mr. Jim Summerlin as Vice - Chairman for the calendar year 1986. } January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Other Matters - Allev Abandonment NAME: Alley in Block 277 of Original City of Little Rock LOCATION: West 150' of the east /west alley lying between Izard and Chester Streets, north of West Markham Street OWNER /APPLICANT: Frank Whitbeck By: Tom Buford REQUEST: To abandon this portion of an open alley for redevelopment with the west half of the block. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way There are certain owners /users in this block taking access over the right -of -way to Chester Street. These owners at present have only one physical access to a dedicated right -of -way inasmuch as Izard Street north of Markham and the east end of this alley have been abandoned. 2. Master Street Plan There are no Master Plan requirements attached to this request. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets None evidenced in our review. 4. Characteristics of the Right -of -Way Terrain A gentle slope to the north and west and at grade with the adjacent lots. 5. Development Potential This right -of -way can only be utilized in conjunction with properties lying immediately adjacent in the form suggested by this developer. January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was in attendance and was represented by several parties including Mr. Moses and Mr. Redden of the architectural firm. The applicant made a lengthy presentation of the proposal involving not only the alley closure in the block, but discussion of the item on this agenda dealing with a resubdivision of the lots in the west half of the block. Planning staff offered additional commentary and recommendation relative to the abandonment and the plat which indicated support for the proposals. This support is conditioned upon removal of the objection of adjacent property owners. Mr. Ben Allen, an adjacent property owner, was present representing his properties and several companies housed in his building as well as McClelland Engineers lying south of the alley. Mr. Allen made a lengthy presentation of the problems perceived by him and his tenants associated with the abandonment of the alley. There were letters of objection submitted including a petition with 12 signatures of tenants in buildings in this block. It was noted for the record that there was also a letter in the file from Mr. Allen as an objector. The Commission requested a report from Henk Koornstra, City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Koornstra offered comments which generally supported the abandonment of the alley. He discussed the existing intersection as a potential traffic problem, also indicating that the access to the proposed parking lot would be more acceptable. A lengthy discussion of this matter then followed, both sides presenting additional comments. The Commission determined that it would be in the best interest of all of the involved parties to defer this matter until February 11 and give the parties an opportunity to meet and discuss resolution of their differences. It was noted by staff and Commission that access to Markham Street along the east side of the proposed development would be suitable resolution of the problem. Both sides indicated that a meeting could be held and discussions held toward resolution of the differences. A motion was then made to defer this application to February 11, 1986. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). � C P L A N N I N G ' C O M M I S S I O N DAT V 0 T E R E C O R D • ITEM NUMBERS ZONING St]BD2V7S7ON AYE ® NAYE A ADSENT ABSTAIN �BGE�����BOG���I��I������f W. Rector ��OB8191�I�II���1�' ���G�� ■ ■�� OU��a�0��d0�f�10000��� Jones t 00000�oe�o��000�o ■ ■ ■i F. Perkins a000e���aor���r�o�r�� ■ ■■ AYE ® NAYE A ADSENT ABSTAIN January 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m. Chairman Se retar Date ��