Loading...
pc_01 13 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 13, 1987 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 were read and approved. III. Members Present: IV. City Attorney Present: J. Schlereth W. Ketcher F. Perkins R. Collins W. Rector, Jr., Chairman R. Massie D. Jones J. Nicholson D. Arnett B. Sipes W. Ridd is k Stephen Giles Pat Benton Deferred Items: Little Rock Planning Commission Summary of Subdivision Items January 13, 1987 A.South Broadway-Conditional Use Permit (Z-4218-A)B.Bixler Commercial Replat, Lot 4C.Westpark Development, Block AR, Lots 5&6D.Rezoning Case -Autumn Road, North of Hermitage (Z-4165)"R-2" to "0-3 " E.Master Street Plan -Proposed Amendment to Autumn Road andRock Creek Parkway Intersection Preliminary Plats/Site Plan: 1.Orbit Subdivision Revised Tract F Site Plan Review: 2.Capitol Hill Apartments Planned Unit Development: 3.Little Rock Retirement Facility (Z-4786) Conditional Use Permit: 4.South Batter Street Daycare -Conditional Use Permit (Z-4784)5.Henderson United Methodist Church -Conditiona Use Permit (Z-4785) Building Line Waiver: 6.Rush -Building Line Waiver -3411 Hidden Valley Road Other Matters: 7.Wesport & The Pointe -Private Access Revision8. Barrow Office -Preliminary Phasing and Name Change 9.Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Final Approval: 10.Rainwood Cove -Long Form Planned Residential Development11.Ridgehaven valley �states January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: South Broadway Conditional Use Permit (Z- 4218 -A) LOCATION: The Southeast corner of 23rd Street and South Broadway OWNER /APPLICANT: David Wilson /Ronnie D. Hall PROPOSAL: To convert an 1,875 square feet commercial building for an automobile repair facility with no outside display on land that is zoned "C -3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (23rd Street) and a principle arterial (South broadway). 2. Compatibilitv With Neiqhborhood This site is abutted by a church use to multifamily to the south, industrial to Substation), and commercial /multifamily the west. The proposed use, properly 1, maintained, will be compatible with the area. 3. On -Sites Drives and Parkin the north, the east (AP &L located to andscaped and surrounding This site has 13 existing parking spaces (excluding the overnight parking area) and three access drives (two drives located on Broadway and one drive on 23rd Street). 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 5. Analysis The staff does not feel that the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The applicant does, however, need to submit a site plan that includes the proposed landscaping. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Eliminate the two parking spaces parallel to Broadway. (2) Close the northernmost drive on Broadway by constructing new curb and gutter. (3) Construct a handicapped ramp on Broadway. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan that includes landscaping and incorporates City Engineering Comments numbered 1 -3. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant was asked to clarify what was meant by an auto repair facility. The applicant stated that he would perform work such as tune -ups, brake repair, and minor mechanical repair. The Committee felt that no body work, storage of junk cars, major auto overhauls, or automobile painting should take place on this site. The applicant agreed to comply. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The applicant was present and was represented by Russell Berry of Garver and Garver Engineers, Inc. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and that the recommendation was for approval with the additional restrictions of: (1) no outside work or testing of engines; (2) no transmission, motor rebuilding, or other major overhaul work; (3) no display or storage of body parts outside; and (4) limiting the hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The applicant agreed to comply except that he preferred to remain open until 6:30 p.m. Ms. Theresa Lynch spoke in objection to the proposal. Ms. Lynch objected to the use due to noise, lack of landscaping, and probable outside storage. She also stated that she opposed a "C -4" rezoning on the same site about one and one -half years earlier which was denied. In addition, she stated that the structure was too small to be suitable for the proposed use. Finally, she stated that the primary reason for her opposition was the use as an auto repair facility. Mr. Kenny Scott stated that this property's usage was reported as a violation on November 13, 1986. David and Virginia Wilson, the owners, spoke of their belief that the property was zoned properly. They stated that the realtor had assured them everything was okay. The Commission and the City Attorney recommended that the Wilsons consult an attorney about their dealings with the sellers of the property. The Commission received a letter from Ron Newman, Director of the Capitol Zoning District Commission, stating opposition to the proposal. The letter further stated that the Capitol Zoning District Commission was encouraging multifamily and office uses along South Broadway. Mr. Henk Koornstra, a resident, also stated opposition to the proposed land use. The Commission then voted 4 ayes, 4 noes, 1 abstention (Ketcher) and 2 absent on the application. The item was automatically deferred until the January 13, 1987, Planning Commission due to a lack of a majority vote. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (12- 29 -86) The applicant was not present. The item was not discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87) The applicant was present and stated that he performed a needed service and that he would be a good neighbor. The staff reiterated its recommendation of approval and also stated that it had received a letter of opposition from Mr. Jim Conner and from Thomas McGowan of the Downtown Neighborhood Association. The applicant also stated than an attorney from Delta Finance, Ron Goodman, had wanted to be present but was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. Mr. Kenny Scott of the City's Code Enforcement Department stated that Mr. Wilson had maintained a clean operation since the last Planning Commission meeting. The City Attorney stated that the purchase agreement was a private matter between the buyer and the seller. Ms. Teresa Lynch stated that she opposed the conditional use permit due to the land use and would prefer a restaurant that is allowed by right in a "C -3" zoning district. Ms. Charlotte Johnson of the Quapaw Quarter Association opposed the conditional use permit due to the proposed land use. Mr. Ted Holder stated that sympathy was not the issue and that he opposed the conditional use permit due to the adverse land use. Mr. Ron Newman, Director of the Capitol District Commission, stated that the proposed land use is incompatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Ken Christie opposed the proposed land use and stated that noise would also be a problem. The Commission then voted 1 aye, 9 noes, 1 abstention (Ketcher) to deny the conditional use permit and allowed Mr. Wilson 30 days to remove his business from the premises. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: T A/IT TT/111_ DEVELOPER• West Markham Assoc. /Jim Hathaway 1500 Worthen Bank Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -1700 Bixler Commercial Subdivision Replat, Lot 4 NE Corner of Markham and I -430 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, and Assoc. 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 375 -5331 AREA: 8.65 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 950 ZONING: "C- 319/ 190 -3" PROPOSED USE: Office /Commercial A. Proposal /Request: 1. To replat an existing preliminary of 8.6 acres into nine lots and 950' of street for use as commercial /office. 2. A variance is requested to permit a minor commercial loop street of 950'. 3. Access is limited to three curb cuts along Natural Resources Drive as approved in the original plat for this property. B. Existing Conditions: 1. Area is currently developed as commercial and office. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Request for street variance. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued 2. Give internal street name (see David Hathcoc k) - 371 -4808. D. Engineerinq Comments: 1. HIGHLY RECOMMEND one stormwater detention facility for entire plat. 2. Thirty-six-foot collector required on loop street. 3. Traffic access and driveway location must be approved by Traffic Engineer: a. Lot 12 should have one drive on Natural Resources. b. Lots 9 and 11 to have joint drive. C. Lots 7 and 8 should have joint drives. F. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments. Staff is opposed to the applicant's request to develop the street to residential standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that the minor commercial street was requested since there won't be sufficient traffic for a 36 foot street and there was a possibility that Shoney's would not aqree to tearing up an existing parking lot. He agreed to meet with Engineering regarding the requested waiver and detention. He also agreed to submit a revised plan showing a tighter curve in the street and to meet with Shoney's regardinq their parking lot. Water - Water Works has not been contacted in regard to the water main relocation. It is recommended that the Developer do so as soon as possible. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The applicant was present and two persons identified themselves as objectors by turning in cards. The Planning staff offered its recommendation plus clarification of the minor commercial street issue. Mr. Jim Hathaway offered a brief_ comment on his proposal and asked that Wes Lowder of the Mehlburger Engineering firm identify the issues on the street alignment and the width. Mr. Lowder then proceeded to identify the problems with the location of a commercial collector adjacent to the Shoney's Restaurant property. He identified the narrow dimensions between certain physical elements already in place. Mr. Hathaway then stated that he had not received final agreements on dedicating the right -of -way from the several abutting owners. He stated that he understood he should have followed through on this matter after the Subdivision Committee meeting. He further stated that he would follow up on this item. A general discussion of the Shoney's participation followed. It was determined that the Shoney's parking lot curb was approximately three feet from the new curb on the commercial street. Mr. Hathaway then outlined the history of the subdivision plat and the development proposals that have been presented in the past. The chairman then asked the objectors to make their presentation. Mr. Arnold Chilton, an attorney for State Building Services Commission, offered statements on the effects of this action on the state property lying to the north. He then introduced Mr. Jerry Sanders of the State Building Services Commission who offered the State development history on the several sites and uses now in place. He identified the agreements with Mr. Hathaway and his group as well as the dedication of Natural Resources Drive to the City of Little Rock. The City was determined to be outside the agreement between the several involved parties. The six points of the agreement between State Building Services and Mr. Hathaway's group were read by Mr. Sanders. He further offered that the State Building Services Commission would like Mr. Hathaway to present his case to them and answer their questions. Mr. Hathaway responded to Mr. Sanders statement. Commissioner Schlereth then stated that he thought that the State should be a party to this plat's Bill of Assurance. Commissioner Massie stated that he thought that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to protect the State interests in the same fashion as other property owners. He January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued made comments on the Bill of Assurance restrictions and offered that the Bill of Assurance should have already been dealt with by the staff with the initial filing. The Bill of Assurance should have dealt with the State's concerns. Commissioner Massie asked that Mr. Hathaway consider a deferral to January 13 in order to resolve the issues. Mr. Hathaway said he could accept a deferral and meet with the State Building Services staff and the City Planning staff. Commissioner Massie then offered a motion for deferral of the plat with the Planning staff to set a meeting of the interested parties. A report back to the Commission would be presented as soon as possible before the January 13 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87) The applicant was present. Staff recommended approval of the revised site plan and Bill of Assurance as agreed upon by the State Building Services and revision of the radius of the through street to between 100 to 1101. Mr. Sanders, representing the state, felt that an agreement had been reached. He asked that the staff be aware of their desire for a green -belt on the property to the east when a proposal is presented on that site. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: Lots 5 and 6, Block "AR," Westpark Development LOCATION: West Side of 1300 Block of Westpark Drive Westpark II Partnership Summerlin Associates, Inc. 10121 Rodney Pahram 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 221 -3224 Phone: 376 -1323 AREA: 2.79 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I -2" PROPOSED USE: Office /Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: Boyle Park District CENSUS TRACT: 21.02 A. Proposal /Request: 1. To replat 2.79 acres into two lots for office /warehouse use. B. Existing Conditions: 1. Industrial, office, and warehouse uses in the area, floodway on property. C. Issue/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: See Engineering Comments. D. Enqineering Comments: 1. Dedicate floodway before final plat is signed. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued 2. One hundred year flood info on plat is wrong -- 1' should be 2'. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant expressed reluctance at showing the floodway dedication on the plat, since the floodway is currently in comdemnation. He preferred to show an easement. He explained that he didn't want to indicate that he was giving away land that the City has condemned and is supposed to pay for. Staff was asked to research the status of the condemnation suit and request a report from the City Attorney. Water - On -site fire protection is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The staff offered its recommendation. There were no objectors in attendance. The owner was not present but was represented by his engineer, Mr. Summerlin. The Commission requested clarification from the staff of the staff's recommendation on the floodway. Mr. Greeson stated that the staff and City Attorney in their discussions revealed that it would be inappropriate to require the dedication inasmuch as the City is involved in pursuing a condemnation of the floodway. Pat Benton of the City Attorney's Office stated that the City Board had passed a resolution to condemn the subject floodway, but that no ordinance had been passed which is required before they can file the condemnation proceedings. Mr. Summerlin described the plat as a two -lot replat of what was Lot AR,to produce a second lot for sale. He further stated that the existing plat did not dedicate January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued the floodway but that an easement was granted across the westernmost lot. This action predates the current policy of dedication established by the City Board of Directors. Pat Benton stated that negotiations for purchase of this tract began in 1983 and that offers and negotiations are underway. Mr. Rector stated that if the plat is not approved without the owners having dedicated the floodway, then the owner might move on the negotiations. It was felt by several Commissioners that this plat is a new plat and comes under policy even it was not on the previous occasion. The Chairman felt that this is a new issue just like a new plat. A brief discussion of the condemnation issue followed. Mr. Summerlin was asked how his client might react to deferral in order to work out something. Mr. Summerlin responded that there still were some remaining questions as to what the Commission could do in light of the Board of Directors' resolution on condemnation. Pat Benton stated that a deferral of this matter could be valuable and afford her office additional time to research the matter. The general consensus of the Commission appeared to be that they didn't feel they could set aside the current policy on dedication and approve this plat. A motion was made to defer the matter for 30 days or until January 13, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Since an agreement had been reached between City Engineering and the developer, a motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 Item No. D - Z -4765 Owner: David Kennedy Applicant: Same Location: Autumn Road North of Hermitage Road Request: Rezone from "R -2" to 110 -3" Purpose: Office Size: 9.3 acres Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Vacant and Church, Zoned "R -2" and "C -3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a 9.3 acre tract from "R -2" to "0 -3" for an unspecified office development. The site is located on Autumn Road north of Hermitage Road and adjacent to the Birchwood Subdivision on two sides. The land use is still primarily single family in the intermediate area with the major nonresidential development taking place to the east at Shackleford and Financial Centre Parkway. The zoning is made up of "R -2," 110 -2," "0 -3" and "C -3" with a high percentage of the nonresidential tracts still undeveloped. Some of the existing "C -3" at the intersection of Autumn and Hermitage was established through the resolution of an annexation suit. The property abuts "R -2" zoning on four sides with the exception of the southwest corner which is adjacent to "C -3." Based on development trends in the area and future circulation patterns, it appears that the property has some potential for nonresidential use. 2. The site is primarily wooded with a single family residence occupying the northwest corner. 3. Currently, the Master Street Plan identifies Autumn Road as only a residential street. There has been some discussion of changing this status because of a proposal to create an at grade intersection with the future extension of the Financial Centre Parkway /I -630. January 13, 1987 Item No. D - Continued If such an amendment is made to the Master Street Plan, then it appears that some additional right -of -way dedication will be required. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. Relative to this particular rezoning request, the immediate neighborhood has not expressed any position. In the past, the Birchwood area has always been very involved with any rezoning development proposals in the area. There is no documented history on the site. 7. This area is experiencing many development pressures, primarily because of the proposed extension of I -630 to the west. There is a significant office development to the east, and it is anticipated that once the extension is completed, that type of a land use pattern will follow the parkway to Bowman Road. The current I -430 District Plan shows the location in question for continued single family use, and that was based on the status of Autumn Road. Should the contemplated intersection with Financial Centre Parkway become a reality and the necessary Master Street Plan change is accomplished, staff is of the opinion that a well - coordinated office development is a reasonable use of the land. Because of the single family involvement in the area, staff feels that an "0 -2" reclassification is more appropriate to ensure site plan review. Also, to provide additional protection to the abutting single family lots, staff suggests a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides of the property. And finally, to the east of the site there is an existing right -of -way, and it is recommended that it be abandoned. This would allow the various landowners abutting it to gain additional land area and lessen the potential impact of the 50 -foot strip on the site under consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "0 -2" and not "0 -3" as filed with a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides. January 13, L987 Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The owner was represented by Ed Willis. There were three objectors in attendance. Mr. Willis said that the owner had agreed to amending the rezoning to "0 -2" and placing 110 -3" height restrictions on the property through the zoning action. Mr. Willis then discussed the proposed street closure to the east and said he had no problems with the 50 -foot "OS" buffer being measured from the street closure line. There were several comments made about the height issue, and the City Attorney indicated that a rezoning action could have conditions attached restricting the height 45 feet. Mrs. Zadie Gamble then spoke and said she supported the rezoning request. She also submitted for the record a newsletter that was being distributed throughout the neighborhood. Lee Cowan spoke against the rezoning and said that nonresidential zoning keeps getting closer and closer. She said the residential area was a good neighborhood and expressed concern with the height and traffic increases. There was a long discussion about the street system and the proposed change to the Master Street Plan for Autumn Road. Mr. Willis said that the City Engineer wanted Autumn Road to be opened and reviewed the design for the proposed parkway extension. Martha Fleming, a resident at the corner of Birchwood and Autumn, said she was opposed to the rezoning and that it would destroy the neighborhood. She also indicated that the buffer would provide no protection and had problems with the potential widening of Autumn Road. Donna Ztchieson opposed the rezoning and described the neighborhood as being affordable and stable. She said that the neighborhood experienced problems when West Markham was closed, and the same thing would occur if Autumn was made into a collector. Autumn Road and the proposed Master Street Plan amendment were discussed at length. Mr. Willis said that Autumn Road needed to remain open because it was the only accessible point between Shackleford and Bowman Roads. There was some discussion about the area to the west and Birchwood Drive. Several Commissioners then expressed concerns about impacts from traffic and requested the staff to review possible options for traffic control. There were a number of comments made by the various individuals. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amended request to "0 -2" with a 50 -foot "OS" strip on the north and east sides. January 13, 1987 Item No. D - Continued There was some discussion about a possible deferral, and Mr. Willis said he had no objections to that. A second motion was made to table the previous motion and defer action to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) (NOTE: ITEM B AND ITEM NO. 20 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER). The applicant, Ed Willis, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Jim Lawson of the City Planning staff spoke first and discussed the proposed Master Street Plan amendment for Autumn Road. Mr. Lawson said that an agreement was being developed that would require a full intersection to be constructed for Autumn Road with the Parkway extension and that all details needed to be finalized prior to the office rezoning issue being forwarded to the Board of Directors. Mr. Lawson made several additional comments about the Master Street Plan issue and the zoning request. Bob Lane, Director of the Public Works Department, then addressed the proposed change to the Master Street Plan and presented some background information. There were a number of comments made about the proposed road and the improvement district. Mr. Lane spoke again and said that all the street requirements needed to be tied down. Joe White, engineer for the improvement district, addressed the design of the proposed road and said the road would not be built until 1989. Staff then reviewed several options for the Master Street Plan amendment and recommended Option One which proposes a full intersection for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension. Ed Willis then discussed the property under consideration and circulation in the area. He also reviewed the proposed agreement which will specify right -of -way requirements and location of curb cuts. Commissioner Jones then stated for the record that if the City agrees with the full intersection, then the improvement district should pay for the intersection improvements. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was made to defer both Items B and No. 20 to the January 13, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87) (NOTE: ITEMS D AND E WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER). The applicant, Ed Willis, was represented by Wes Lowder. January 13, 1987 Item No. D - Continued There were no objectors present. Mr. Lowder spoke briefly and discussed the plans for the Parkway extension. Mr. Willis then addressed the Commission and responded to several questions. He said that he did not foresee any problems with working out the financing for the street improvements and went on to say that the entire intersection for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension needed to be constructed at one time. Commissioner David Jones then spoke and clarified remarks he made at the December 16, 1986, meeting concerning the proposed intersection. He said that the intent of his previous statement was that the cost be shared by all the various parties and not just by the road improvement district as reflected in the minute record for the December 16th meeting. There was a long discussion about the proposed road and the intersection. Mr. Willis then said he was willing to work with the district and dedicate any needed right -of -way at no cost to the district. He also said that third parties would be responsible for any improvements outside of the right -of -way. There were a number of comments made about the various issues and Mr. Willis said he was only interested in the office rezoning if a full intersection with Autumn Road and the Parkway extension is constructed. Don McChesney, City Engineer, said that there was no final design at this time but the issue was just a Master Street Plan change which the City supported. He also said that the necessary improvements would be done. Joe White, Engineer for the improvement district, had no objections to the proposed Master Street Plan amendment. Mark Lester, representing the Office Park West Partnership, then discussed a proposed median cut east of Autumn Road. Mr. McChesney said that the median cut would not be affected one way or another by the pending action. Jack Williams, attorney for the improvement district, discussed the cost and said that the district had no problems with the Master Street Plan change. The public hearing was then declared closed. The Planning Commission first voted to recommend approval of the Master Street Plan amendment. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). The Commission then voted on a motion to recommend approval of "0 -2" and "O -S" for the north and east 50 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). January 13, 1987 Item No. E - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - Alignment of the Rock Creek Parkwav The staff has received a request to amend the Master Street Plan as it relates to the Autumn Road and Rock Creek Parkway area. The Master Street Plan does not show an Autumn Road and Rock Creek Parkway intersection. Autumn Road is shown on the June 1981, parkway alignment as a cul -de -sac north of the parkway. The request is to continue Autumn Road south to create an intersection with the Rock Creek Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of an amendment to the Master Street Plan to shown an intersection of Autumn Road at the Rock Creek Parkway. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) (NOTE: ITEM B AND ITEM NO. 20 WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER.) The applicant, Ed Willis, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Jim Lawson of the City Planning staff spoke first and discussed the proposed Master Street Plan amendment for Autumn Road. Mr. Lawson said that an agreement was being developed that would require a full intersection to be constructed for Autumn Road with the Parkway extension and that all details needed to be finalized prior to the office rezoning issue being forwarded to the Board of Directors. Mr. Lawson made several additional comments about the Master Street Plan issue and the zoning request. Bob Lane, Director of the Public Works Department, then addressed the proposed change to the Master Street Plan and presented some background information. There were a number of comments made about the proposed road and the improvement district. Mr. Lane spoke again and said that all the street requirements needed to be tied down. Joe White, engineer for the improvement district, addressed the design of the proposed road and said the road would not be built until 1989. Staff then reviewed several options for the Master Street Plan amendment and recommended Option One which proposes a full intersection for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension. Ed Willis then discussed the property under consideration and circulation in the area. He also reviewed the proposed agreement which will specify right -of -way requirements and location of curb cuts. January 13, 1987 Item No. E - Continued Commissioner Jones then stated for the record that if the City agrees with the full intersection, then the improvement district should pay for the intersection improvements. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was made to defer both Items B and No. 20 to the January 13, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Fred Perkins). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87) (NOTE: ITEMS D AND E WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER). The applicant, Ed Willis, was represented by Wes Lowder. There were no objectors present. Mr. Lowder spoke briefly and discussed the plans for the Parkway extension. Mr. Willis then addressed the Commission and responded to several questions. He said that he did not foresee any problems with working out the financing for the street improvements and went on to say that the entire intersection for Autumn Road and the Parkway extension needed to be constructed at one time. Commissioner David Jones then spoke and clarified remarks he made at the December 16, 1986, meeting concerning the proposed intersection. He said that the intent of his previous statement was that the cost be shared by all the various parties and not just by the road improvement district as reflected in the minute record for the December 16th meeting. There was a long discussion about the proposed road and the intersection. Mr. Willis then said he was willinq to work with the district and dedicate any needed right -of -way at no cost to the district. He also said that third parties would be responsible for any improvements outside of the right -of -way. There were a number of comments made about the various issues and Mr. Willis said he was only interested in the office rezoning if a full intersection with Autumn Road and the Parkway extension is constructed. Don McChesney, City Engineer, said that there was no final design at this time but the issue was just a Master Street Plan change which the City supported. He also said that the necessary improvements would be done. Joe White, Engineer for the improvement district, had no objections to the proposed Master Street Plan Amendment. Mark Lester, representing the Office Park West Partnership, then discussed a proposed median cut east of Autumn Road. Mr. McChesney said that the median cut would not be affected one way or another by the pending action. Jack Williams, attorney for the improvement district, discussed the cost and said that the district had no problems with the Master Street Plan change. The public January 13, 1987 Item No. E - Continued hearing was then declared closed. The Planning Commission first voted to recommend approval of the Master Street Plan Amendment. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). The Commission then voted on a motion to recommend approval of "0-2" and "O -S" for the north and east 50 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, and 2 abstentions (Rose Collins and Fred Perkins). January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 332 -A NAME: LOCATION• it L��7 LET /1D LSD . Payless Cashways, Inc. #2 Pershing Square Kansas City, MO Orbit Subdivision - Revised Preliminary Plat (Lots E and F) NE Corner of I -30 Frontage Road at Chicot Road ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Renshaw West Second at Ringo Street Little Rock, AR Phone: 375 -5331 VARIANCES: None requested. AREA: 51.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 6 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 REQUEST: To revise the approved preliminary plat for purposes of adding Tracts E and F. Tract E for the apartment complex recently completed and Tract F for Payless Cashways. A. Existing Conditions The plat area is generally flat land with some natural ground cover remaining. The apartment complex, Village Green, is the only built -up tract. B. Development Proposal The Payless Cashways tract will be developed as a large retail store for building material and will include an accessory warehouse on the rear of the property adjacent to the apartments. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued C. Engineering Comments Street improvements along Chicot Road to collector street standard. D. Analysis The proposal presents no issue of consequence. The effect of the lot changes will be minimal inasmuch as the neighborhood is now zoned "C -3" or multifamily along Chicot Road. There exists commercial development across Chicot to the west along the frontage road and apartment development along Chicot Road running north to the Mabelvale Pike intersection. E. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the plat modification subject to the street improvement requirement plus some attention to buffer or screening treatment of the north property line adjacent to the apartment complex. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE: (12- 29-86) The applicant outlined the proposal as a cleanup action on the apartment project and continued marketing of the land. The only unresolved issue was a concern by staff for some type of buffer or screening of the apartment site to the north. Staff suggested that the 40' standard in the Subdivision Ordinance for office commercial plats be utilized without the intrusion of off - street parking. Mr. Chambers of the Mehlburger firm indicated that he would talk to the purchaser and /or developer and report on a treatment plan at the meeting on January 13. Water: The Little Rock Water Works has requested an easement of an existing 8" waterline within Tract E occupied by the apartment complex and owned by the Water Works. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to a 40' undisturbed open space and a 6' fence. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 742 NAME: Capitol Hill Apartments LOCATION: Lying on the north side of West Markham Street and easterly of its intersection with Battery r% A77P. T f1DP. D . VMIT ThTVVn . Capitol Hill Properties Eddie Branton, Architect 3226 JFK Boulevard 707 Wallace Building No. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -4930 AREA: 4.55 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "MF -24" Multifamily PROPOSED USE: Apartments /102 units in three -story buildings at a density of 22.4 units per acre. VARIANCES: None requested. A. Site History The subject site was rezoned from "I -3" Heavy Industrial to "MF -24" Multifamily on November 18, 1986. The property has experienced several development proposals over the last several years. B. Development Concept To utilize the terrain to its best advantage and protect the hillside while siting nine buildings, a swimming pool and clubhouse facilities. C. Proposal To construct seven apartment structures with 102 units at three - stories each with a mix of unit types. Access is to be by way of West Markham Street and Battery Street for the majority of the units with a secondary access to Gill Street and Garland Street at the northwest corner. There will be 153 parking spaces for a 1.5 per unit count. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued D. Issues There are several issues which were initially raised in the rezoning hearing and will be likely introduced again. These are: (1) poor access for this density over a two -lane street system three blocks or more to an arterial street, (2) street improvements, (3) drainage improvement on and off -site, and (4) screening and lighting on the site. E. Staff Analysis The staff view of this proposal is that the density is high, but a limit of 102 units with little possibility of future multifamily on this hill suggests that it is appropriate. The access issue was addressed at the time of rezoning when the owner agreed to provide improvements to both Markham Street and Battery Street off-site. This involved at least two blocks of off -site improvements. A staff review indicates a deficiency in quantitative data relative to the unit mix in each building, number of units in each building, and the design of the tennis courts. We also feel a grading plan would be useful in determining the total site effect of these buildings and parking areas. Further, notice to neighbors should be given. F. Engineering Comments (1) Need detention plan. (2 ) Close Markham Street east of the alley entrance or improve the street. (3) Meet with the Traffic Engineer to discuss access design at the northwest corner. (4) Street improvements on Markham and Battery as previously agreed upon. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86) The architect was present and offered the plan. He addressed the issues raised and stated that he could provide the additional information and would notify the neighbors utilizing the previous notice list as suggested by Mr. Rector. Water: Little Rock Water Works reports a need for an on -site fire protection plan and a water main extension. Sewer: Sewer is available but capacity contribution analysis is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Two interested persons were in attendance. Ms. Susan Hilman of 109 South Battery had questions concerning current sight distance and substandard street problems, and whether or not a traffic light will be installed at the intersection with Markham Street. The traffic engineer, Mr. Henk Koornstra, responded to her concerns. Mrs. Lucy Tobin of 110 South Schiller also spoke in favor of a traffic light at the intersection of Summit and Markham. She presented photos taken during rush hour. She asked for more information on screening and lighting. She felt that traffic going on to Third Street would aggravate an existing bad situation. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Z- 4786/741 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Holiday Management 471 High, S.E. Salem, Oregon 97308 Phone: 399 -1090 Little Rock Retirement Residence "PRD" Lying on the south of Cantrell Road along the east side of Andover Drive VMnTMVVD . Clifford Curry, Architect 471 High, S.E. Salem, Oregon 97308 Phone: 399 -1080 REQUEST: To develop 110 apartment suites in a single building on one lot. AREA: 2.64 acres NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "MF -18" and "PRD" A. Existing Conditions 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 The lot has some moderate to steep grade which presents an access problem for the driveway. The site is covered with natural foliage. B. Development Proposal To construct 110 suites with a mix of 90 percent one - bedroom and 10 percent two - bedroom. The building will vary in height but will be one -story on the entry face and three plus stories on the street side. The residents are in an age range from the upper 70's to the 80's with 80 percent of the rooms being one occupant. It is expected that fewer than 25 percent of the residents will own cars. Transportation will be on -call on the site through utilization of vans. Parking for 48 cars will be provided on site. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued There will be 15 to 18 staff persons with six or seven on the site at any one time, including the resident manager. There will be no on -site permanent medical care or facility. Although a visiting nurse may on occasion visit the site. In addition, there will be a common dining room and kitchen facility. The individual rooms will not have this convenience. Ancillary activities are beauty shop, lounge, exercise room, TV room, and crafts room. C. Engineering Comments (1) More dimensions are needed on the drives and access. (2) Need grade reflected on the access drive. (3) Question absence of service entrance and dumpster site. D. Analysis The staff view is that the design issues are simple to deal with and the issue of concern will be the perceived high density (41.6 per acre). The Watergate Apartment complex to the east is approximately 24 units per acre and the Andover Square Condominium project somewhat beneath 12 per acre. We feel that the type of use in this proposal offsets that density concern because of the small unit size and limited number of occupants. The reduction in ground coverage by off - street parking also is a plus. The only concern we feel that is valid is the conversion possibility if the development fails after construction is complete. The City could be presented with a truly higher density use proposal with parking and other factors being deficient. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "PRD" as filed subject to resolving or furnishing the following: (1) location of the trash pickup, (2) provision of a clear statement of employee and /or occupant parking numbers, (3) design information on the entrance, (4) elevations more clearly depicting the east facade of the building facing Watergate Apartments, (5) comply with Landscaping Ordinance, (6) comply with Sign Code requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (12- 29 -86) The applicant was present and responded to staff and committee comments. He stated that he could address the design issues and respond by January 13. He was questioned about possibly holding a neighborhood meeting especially with the occupants of Andover Square. He indicated that he would pursue such a meeting and attempt to avert organized objection by providing good information. The Engineering staff requested more information on detention and grades on the drives. A question was raised concerning the service entrance and access to the building and lot for deliveries. Water: Provide plan for means of on -site fire protection through use of mains, hydrants, and /or sprinkler system. Sewer: A sewer main extension is required. Also, a capacity contribution analysis is required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to the applicant producing evidence that indicates sufficient parking for the proposed density and employees. The applicant, Mr. Clifford Curry, represented the proposal. He stated that they managed elderly rental developments. He stated that it would be unlike an apartment because all services, including a van for transport are provided. He stated that the January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 -- Continued average tenant is about 80 years old and is usually one that has problems getting around. He pointed out that the service or delivery would be adjacent to the main entry and that there would be no complete kitchens in the units. The Commission had a problem with the lack of parking spaces. There was discussion on the revision of more parking spaces. It was pointed out that the PUD allowed flexibility; however, one Commissioner felt that other elderly projects were required to provide the required amount of parking, so this one should also. The applicant felt that the required amount of parking was not needed due to the age of the tenants, which was around 80, and the van that would be used for transport. Mr. Billy Herd, consulting engineer for the proposal, felt that seven more spaces could be provided, but significant work on the plan was still required to change the entrance and provide the parking. A motion for deferral until February 24 was made and passed, so that the applicant could pursue adding more land to the project, providing seven more parking spaces, and revising the entrance drive. The vote: 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones abstained). January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: South Battery Day -Care Conditional Use Permit (Z -4784) The Southwest Corner of West 17th and South Battery St. (1702 South Battery) Nathaniel and Marion L. McGee To convert an existing two -story single family structure to a day -care center with a capacity of 35 children on two lots that are zoned "R -4." There will be three employees and only the 2,100 square feet downstairs portion of the structure will be utilized for the day -care use. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to two residential streets (West 17th Street on the north and South Battery Street on the east). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is surrounded on all sides by residential uses. Two duplex uses are located across Battery Street. The close proximity of the adjacent residential structures makes this site a less than desirable land use and would not be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking No on -site drives or parking currently exist, and there are none proposed. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 4. Screening and Buffers The site contains a six feet board screening fence that surrounds the entire rear yard. 5. Analysis The staff is not convinced that this site is an appropriate location for a day -care use with 35 children capacity. In addition, the applicant has failed to provide three paved parking spaces for employees as well as a drop -off area for the children. 6. City Engineering Comments The applicant needs to provide three paved parking spaces as well as a drop -off area. 7. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The staff stated its recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 13 -87) The applicant, Marion McGee, was present as were five objectors. The staff stated its recommendation of denial and that the applicant had failed to meet the notice requirements. The staff also stated that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting deferral and that they had received three phone calls in opposition. The City Attorney stated that even though the applicant had failed to meet all January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued the notice requirements, the fact that objectors were present indicated that notice had occurred and that the Commission could suspend the rules and here the matter. The Commission voted 8 ayes and 3 noes on a motion to suspend the rules and here the item. The motion failed due to a vote equal to less than 75 percent which the bylaws require. The item was deferred until the February 24, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: Henderson United Methodist Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z -4785) LOCATION: The north side of West Baseline Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Stagecoach Road (13,000 Stagecoach Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Henderson United Methodist Church /Don Johnson of Brooks Jackson Architects PROPOSAL: To obtain a conditional use permit for an existing church facility (194 capacity) and to construct a one -story 4,960 square feet classroom addition and 22 paved parking spaces on 7.38 acres of land that is zoned "R -2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a principal arterial, (West Baseline Road). 2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood The property is abutted by vacant land on the north, east, and west and by a single family use located to the south. This area is shown on the Surburban Development Plan as multifamily (18 -36 units per acre) and single family attached (6 -12 units per acre). The use is compatible with the surrounding area. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking One existing 30 feet access serves the property with no additional accesses proposed. The site contains 63 paved parking spaces with an additional 22 proposed (85 total). 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed land use is compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant does, however, need to submit a revised site plan that includes landscaped areas and all dimensions of drives and buildings as well as their proposed uses. 6. City Engineer Comments The applicant needs to dedicate and construct West Baseline Road to arterial street standards. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes landscaped areas, all dimensions and proposed uses; (2) dedicate and construct West Baseline Road to arterial street standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised site plan. There was some discussion about the possible phasing of improvements on West Baseline Road. The Committee advised the applicant to submit a Master Site Plan for the entire 7.38 acre site with a proposed phasing plan. The applicant agreed to comply. Finally, the Water Works stated that on -site fire protection may be required. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that they had received a revised Master Site Plan as suggested by the Subdivision Committee, and that the plan included a sanctuary (400 capacity), parking (214 total), classrooms, and an activity center. The staff further stated that the plan contained five phases and that the improvements to Baseline Road would be made for the length of Phase I and that the remainder of the improvements to Baseline Road would be made at the time of Phase III construction. The applicant agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the conditional use permit as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. G -29 -59 NAME: Rush Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 3411 Hidden Valley Drive REQUEST: To vary the platted building line on the side street so as to allow encroachment into the 25' setback line approximately five feet. A. Existing Conditions A single platted lot over 100' wide by 155 +' deep lying on a corner with platted 25' setback lines on each frontage. B. Development Proposal The owner proposes to extend a new three-car garage approximately 5' into the side street yard area and convert the present garage into a bedroom. C. Engineering Comments The only concern expressed would be site distance. None was observed as a problem on this site. D. Analysis The proposal has received endorsement by the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association. The staff finds no fault with the proposed intrusion. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to filing a one -lot replat with an amended Bill of Assurance for staff review and recording at the County Courthouse. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86) The item was discussed briefly. No issues of consequence were observed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Preliminary Plat Modification NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown Big K Development Co. Beckingham Drive Little Rock, AR Wes Port Addition and the Pointe Subdivision NW of Hillsborough Subdivision and Beckingham Drive T.`Mn TMVVD . Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664 -0003 REQUEST: To modify the approved preliminary plat for introduction of a private access drive between the two subdivisions serving eight lots four in each plat. A. Existinq Conditions Preliminary plat under development. There are certain natural features such as rock outcroppings within these plats preventing proper front yard drive access. B. Development Proposal To add a drive easement on each plat which when finaled will be 15' on the Pointe Subdivision and 10' on the Wes port plat. The Bill of Assurance on both plats will provide for permanent maintenance on all of the easement by all eight lots. C. Engineering Comments None. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued D Analysis The proposal presents no problems and possibly will eliminate several. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: The applicant presented his request. There were no issues of consequence developed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Preliminary Plat Modification NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown Beckingham Drive Little Rock, AR Barrow Plaza Addition (change to Barrow Office Addition) On the west side of Barrow Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Kanis Road L+MnTI. VW0 . Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664 -0003 REQUEST: To change the plat name to Barrow Office Addition and add a phasing plan. A. Existinq Conditions Undeveloped vacant 10 acre tract partially cleared. B. Enqineerinq Comments None except that the improvement agreement should reflect an amount equal to the work required on Labette Drive. C. Analysis The staff's view of this request is supportive of the phasing and name change but encourages construction of full width on Labette Drive for the depth of Phase I plus the dedication. However, we will work with half street improvements if the Planning Commission is comfortable with such a proposal. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of both requests. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (12- 29 -86) The Committee developed the street improvement issue and encouraged Mr. Brown to include both dedication and improvements full depth of Phase I. Mr. Richardson representing Mr. Brown offered comments that he believed the owner will build the entirety of Labette Drive to his west property line and that building full street improvements adjacent to Phase I should not present a particular problem. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Other Matters /Ordinance Amendment Chaoter 43., Article III, Section 3- 101(a)2. PROPOSAL: To amend the Zoning Ordinance for purposes of providing continuity of service for Board of Adjustment members. HISTORY: The Board of Adjustment has experienced difficulty over the past several years with maintaining a quorum for meetings. This has been in part due to the members' terms expiring without an ordinance for continuance of service until reappointed or replaced. Each February, there are three appointments terminated leaving only six members with a quorum requirement of five. This has on several occasions caused a meeting to be held over for a special meeting and delayed many applicants. The amendment as proposed by the Planning staff and approved by the City Attorney's staff reads as follows: 2. Vacancies Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of the member whose place has become vacant by the City Manager subject to the approval of the City Board of Directors. Anv member whose term exoires shall continue to serve until his/her successor is appointed and qualified. The appointing authority shall have the power to remove any member of the Board for cause and after public hearing provided, however, any member of the Board who shall be absent from three or more consecutive regular meetings shall be removed from office without hearing upon certification of such fact by the Secretary of the Board to the City Manager. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1 -13 -87 The Planning staff offered the amendment to the ordinance and explained its purpose. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion of the proposal was held. A motion was then made to recommend approval of the ordinance change. The recommendation of approval passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Rainwood Cove "Long -form PRD" (Z -4760) LOCATION: North side of Rainwood Road, immediately east of Pleasantwood Condominiums DEVELOPER: B. G. Coney ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Assoc. 10,500 W. Markham, Suite 111 Little Rock, AR AREA: 10.01 Acres No. of Lots: 50 ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Single Family STAFF REPORT: The applicant is requesting approval of the final plan. The Subdivision Committee had no problems with the request. January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Ridgehaven Vallev Subdivision The Commission was provided copies of a letter from John A. Castin on behalf of the Darbe Development Corporation requesting consideration of a revised preliminary plat for the Ridgehaven Valley properties in west Little Rock. The revised plat (Scheme D) was the result of a series of meetings between the developer and property owners along Ridgehaven Road. Staff recommended approval of the revised plat which included additional provisions to discourage and slow down traffic on Ridgehaven Road. Staff noted that the only change from staff's previous recommendation was that the approval of the City Board would not have to be obtained for condemnation of the right -of -way along Ridgehaven Road, because the property owners had agreed to provide the right -of -way at the appraised cost if Scheme D was approved by the Commission. The previously approved conditions would still be in effect, i.e., that the developer would upgrade Ridgehaven Drive to a paving width of 27 feet and minimum right -of -way of 40 feet. The additional right -of -way needed for this purpose would have to be acquired. The detailed street plans must be approved by the developer and approved by the City. Upgrading of Ridgehaven Drive would occur early in the development process at the direction of the City. In addition, final plats in the subdivision would be limited to 40 lots until such time as a second access road from the subdivision is constructed. Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, indicated that he could not recommend approval of Scheme D due to potential traffic problems in the plat. He suggested that the Commission consider Scheme A. After discussion, the Commission voted 8 ayes, 1 noe, and 2 abstentions to approve Scheme D as recommended by staff. . � DATE 0°"!'Uo6:l 13, L987 PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS -ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER A e, L; D E l 2.. 3 4 5 (o '7 Q 9 W.Riddick, III •✓ ,/ • v ✓ • ./ ✓✓ / ✓ / ✓ J.Schlereth ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / / ✓ � ✓✓ R.Massie • ,/ ,./ v ✓✓ ,/ ✓ V ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ B.Sipes •✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓✓ / ✓/ / ✓✓ J.Nicholson •✓✓ ,/ ✓ ✓ ,/ I/ ✓ ✓ ✓/' / / w.Rector •✓✓ y ✓✓ ✓ ,/ ,/ ✓ / / / / W.Ketcher Ip, ,/ ✓ v v ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ,4· ✓ v / ✓ D.Arnett • ✓ ✓ ✓ ,/ ✓ / ✓ ./ v / / ✓ / D.J. Jones •✓✓ ✓v / ✓ � / ✓✓ / ✓ ✓ R.Collins •✓ / � I.th ✓ ✓ :/ ✓✓ / / ✓ ✓ F.Perkins •✓ v I� •4'. ,/ ✓ ✓ v ../ v ✓✓ ✓ ✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT ':e_ABSTAIN J{) I l l I ✓ ✓ / / �� ✓., ✓-✓ ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓✓- ✓� ✓-/v / January 13, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m Chairman Secretary Date