Loading...
pc_12 16 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD December 16, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum The roll was called and 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: Commissioner J. Nicholson Chairman W. Ketcher Commissioner W. Rector Commissioner I. Boles Commissioner D. Arnett Commissioner J. Schlereth Commissioner B. Sipes Commissioner W. Reddick Commissioner F. Perkins Commissioner R. Massie Commissioner D. Jones IV. City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY SUBDIV ISION AND ZONING AGENDA ITEMS DECEMBER 16, 1986 Deferred Items: A.Ridgehaven Valley Estates Rezoning: 1.(Z-4773) -East 11th and Townsend � "R-3" to "I-2" 2.(Z-4774) -9624 West Markham -"R-2" to "C-1" Preliminary Plats/ Replats: 3.Wood Creek 4.Sandpiper West 5.Rock Creek Square 6.Bixler Commercial Replat, Lot 4 7.Edmondson's Replat -Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Lot "A" andpart of Lot "B,11 Cherr y's Little Farms Subdivision,Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas 8.Westpark Development -Block AR, Lots 5 and 6 9.Summit Ridge 10.Woodland Hills Replat -Lots 38R-43R Planned Unit Development: 11. Barton Oaks, Phase II -"Short-Form PRD" (Z-4777) Conditional Use Permits: 12. South Broadway (Z-4218-A) Building Line Waiver: 13.Galusha Building Line Waiver (Lot 2, Hillsboroug hAddition) 14.Salazar Building Line Waiver (Lot 168, Kingwood Place) LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY -CONTINUED DECEMBER 16, 1986 Right-of-way Closures: 15.Alley closure, Block 5, Centennial Addition 16.Allen closure, Block 2, Forbes Addition 17.Street abandonment -unnamed right-of-way 18.Street Name Change -Coquina Court Other Matters: 19.Fletch er Meadows -Phasing Plan and Final PUD approval December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A�_ NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Ridge Haven Valley West of Ridge Haven Road, North of St. Charles Blvd. Darbe Development Corp. Manes, Castin, Massie & Hinson Road McGetrick Little Rock, AR 2501 North Willow Telephone: 221 -0937 North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 758 -1360 AREA: 59 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 120 FT. NEW STREET: 6,700 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Proposal /Request: To plat 59 acres into 120 lots and 6,700 feet of new street in three phases. B. Existing Conditions: Wooded; elevations from 475 feet to 550 feet, single family area. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: (1) Show building line - 25' on residential and 30' on all collectors. (2) If average depths of Lot 115 is more than 210', request waiver and submit justifications. (3) Show sidewalks. (4) Indicate purpose of tracts adjacent to Lot 76. (5) Give notice to abutting tracts in excess of 2.5 acres or greater. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (6) Specify ownership and maintenance of parks, open space, reserve tracts and unidentified lots with landscaping. Please assign tract numbers and address in the Bill of Assurance. (7) Haven Glen needs a suffix and Ridge Haven Drive should be changed to Ridge Haven Road, since it is connecting to the existing Ridge Haven Road (see David Hathcock, 371 - 4808). (8) Show City limits line if it goes through this property. (9) Show Ridge Haven extending to the property line. (10) Give name of current owner of land. (11) Redesign pipe stem around Lots 102 and 103. D. Engineering Comments: (1) Develop Haven Brook and Ridge Haven as collectors (36' - 60' right -of -way). (2) Give name to southernmost cul -de -sac (clear with David Hathcock, 371 - 4808). E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to addressing the issues stated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to revise the plat according to staff's comments. Most of the discussion concerned Ridge Haven Road and potential problems created by the access of 120 lots through a street that is constructed to 27' and that has no right -of -way dedication. The applicant objected to making it a collector street. Engineering felt that Ridge Haven would act like a collector until collectors to the west were built. Some committee members felt that even temporary use of Ridge Haven as a collector would be disastrous. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Water - Water main extension on -site fire protection requirement. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies. Sewer - Sewer main extension required. Additional easement required around new main. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Dr. Wepfer, an abutting property owner, requested deferral because she felt that inadequate notice was received. Staff and the City Attorney determined that notice had been given according to Ordinance requirements. Approximately 15 persons from the neighborhood were present. Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to the development of Ridge Haven as a collector street, and the development of four lots only in Phase I, until further access is provided to the west. Mr. Jack Castin represented the Developer. He objected to the construction of Ridge Haven as a collector street. He stated that his client wouldn't prove Ridge Haven Road (off -site) if the City could obtain the right -of -way. He realized that some of the existing property owners along Ridge Haven wanted it improved and some didn't. Dr. Robert Walls expressed some concerns of the residents. They were: (1) the development of Ridge Haven as a collector, due to increased traffic; (2) safety of the intersection with Napa Valley, due to limited view from the north and south by two ridges; (3) development of street would compromise value of existing neighborhood. He also asked that they be given time to seek professional advice about the proposed development. Mr. Dick Toll requested time for the residents to meet with the developers. He requested a 30 -day deferral for this purpose. Mr. Gordon Taylor felt that Ridge Haven was not suitable for increased traffic. Mr. Alan Gold explained that his lot was adjacent to the boulevard entrance planned by the Developer; December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued and if Ridge Haven was widened it would come very close to his front door due to rock out - cropping. He felt that approval of the plat should be delayed since he was not made aware of the Project in what he considered to be an adequate amount of time. Even though the Applicant was not required to give him legal notice since he was not an abutting property owner, he felt that he would be affected by the widening of Ridge Haven. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed so that staff could research the collector issue, and get input from the City Manager on their position on possible condemnation of right -of -way for improvements. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention (Jones). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff reported that a meeting was held to discuss this proposal. It was decided that the City Administration was agreeable to using the Power of Condemnation to widen the street to 27 feet. The developer was willing to pay for construction of the street, however, the City would pay for additional right -of -way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) Mr. Jack Castin represented the developer. Approximately 16 persons from the neighborhood were present in opposition. Mr. Jim Summerlin, engineer, represented the neighborhood also. Attorney Clayton Blackstone also represented some residents in the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval of alternate B or the original submittal of the subdivision subject to: (1) upgrading Ridge Haven to 27 feet - 40 foot right -of -way; (2) the City would acquire additional right -of -way; and (3) the first phase of final be limited to 40 lots until a second access road from the subdivision is constructed. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Concerns expressed by the neighborhood's representatives included fears that Ridge Haven would function as a collector, which would be dangerous since there is currently a limited sight distance at its intersection with Napa Valley. It was felt that alternate B would not solve the problem. The residents were interested in the elimination of the street connection to the north. Ms. Eleanor Walls of 13611 Ridge Haven explained that they had recently made a decision to double their investment and moved into a new home on Ridge Haven based on past commission actions. She felt that they had a legal right to their property as it was purchased based on existing conditions and the Planning Commission had the responsibility for the protection of their property values. She felt that this type of access would make the developer's project more marketable at a cost to the homeowners; thus, it may be legal but not moral. She charged that the homeowners were being asked to subsidize a business interest. Mr. Plastiras of the Greek Orthodox Church at 1100 Napa Valley Road talked about the dangerous intersection and parking problems if the traffic through the area was increased. Mr. Castin felt that a minor percentage of the total traffic would use Ridge Haven. He spoke of making Ridge Haven a cul -de -sac to the west, but asked that plat approval not be held up because of this. Mr. Moore, the developer, felt that Ridge Haven needed to be left open, and explained that he had not looked at providing a cul -de -sac as of yet, but was willing to do so if it resolved the problems. Attorney Blackstone complained that reasonable alternatives to the plat had not been considered and a precedent was being set by condemnation of right -of -way for the developer. It was explained that the City would be the one to condemn the property. Mr. Gold of the neighborhood asked that any proposal on this property be consistent with 3/4 acre lots in the area, have a minimum of 60 -foot at the building line, withhold an extension of Ridge Haven and discuss alternate plans with the neighborhood. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Commissioner Jones pushed for a 30 -day deferral. Initially, the neighborhood explained that if a deferral was granted, that they would not come back and argue their position before the Commission; then afterwards they stated no opposition to a deferral. The developer was not favorable to a deferral call, but asked to amend the plat by eliminating Lot 76 to 79 and the street in between them. A motion was made to approve the amended plat, subject to all lots being a minimum of 60 feet wide, City Board approval of the condemnation proceedings (original submittal) with lots the same as alternate B and also including holding the extension of Ridge Haven, and stopping the plan at Haven Glen until such time as the traffic impact can be predicted. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 abstentions (Massie, Jones). A resident of the neighborhood requested that the record reflect that all their speakers did not get to talk and they felt that they were not allowed a fair hearing. December 16, 1986 Item No. B - 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. December 16, 1986 Item No. B - 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 110 -3" as filed with a 50 -foot "OS" strip along the north and east sides. December 16, 1986 Item No. B - 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 "O -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. December 16, 1986 Item No. B - 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). December 16, 1986 Item No. C - Z -4769 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Various Owners Joe Steck 8520 Distribution Drive Rezone from "R -2" to "I -2" Industrial 0.9 acres Industrial SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" South - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" East - Vacant, Zoned "I -2" West - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request is to rezone approximately one acre from "R -2" to "I -2." The site is occupied by an industrial use, and it is one of the few parcels still zoned "R -2" in the Distribution /Production Drive area. The nonresidential zoning in the immediate area includes "C -3" and "I -2" with a similar land use pattern. There are no outstanding issues and staff supports the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "I -2" zoning as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 25, 1986) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a deferral. A motion was made to defer the request to the December 16, 1986, meeting. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "I -2" rezoning as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z -4773 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Gladys I. Hobert Dorcy Kyle Corbin East 11th and Townsend SW Corner Rezone from "R -3" to "I -2" Parking and Industrial 0.64 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R -3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R -3" East - Industrial, Zoned "I -2" West - Single Family and Vacant Commercial Zoned "R -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone four lots from "R -3" to "I -2" for parking and in the future, some industrial expansion for the existing use to the east. The property is located in close proximity to the Little Rock Airport and related facilities. The major industrial uses in the area are primarily situated to the south of East 12th and east of Harrington Street. The zoning north of East 12th is "R -3" with several "C -3" and "I -2" locations. The land use pattern is very similar with some of the "C -3" tracts being either vacant or occupied by single family residences. In addition, there are possibly two nonconforming uses located at the intersection of East 11th and Apperson with several of the lots vacant. This area is part of the East Little Rock neighborhood which over the years has been improved and upgraded through various programs in order to maintain the residential character and livable environment. Part of that effort should also include making reasonable land use decisions and avoiding further nonresidential zoning encroachments into the neighborhood. 2. The site is made up of four 50 -foot lots that are all vacant. It appears that the property has been used for parking at various times because of an existing gravel surface. December 16, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. A site plan with access points and parking must be approved by the traffic engineer. Also, boundary street improvements may be required. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented history on the site. Staff has received several informational calls regarding this request. 7. Staff's position is that the "I -2" rezoning is inappropriate at this time, and does not support the request. The "I -2" rezoning could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood by allowing additional industrial intrusion into the area, and there are a number of uses that are incompatible with the existing single family residences. Over the years, two industrial encroachments beyond East 12th and Harrington have occurred and it would be undesirable to allow that pattern to continue by granting this request. If parking is the only immediate use, then review of that type of proposal can be accomplished through Board of Adjustment action. The Board of Adjustment has the authority to approve parking requests on "R -3" property for nonresidential uses without having to rezone the land. Staff is more comfortable with the Board of Adjustment process because it provides for a more detailed review and restricts the use of the site to parking only. Through this review, the residents of the area can be offered better protection by ensuring adequate buffering and screening. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "I -2" rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Dorcy Corbin, was present. There were no objectors. Ms. Corbin indicated that she was the attorney for the applicant and then presented some photos of the neighborhood. She said the parking lot would improve the property and in the future, there could possibly be some industrial development. Dennis Davis, representing Arkansas Modification Center, said that they needed the lots for December 16, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued potential expansion and to have some flexibility. There was a long discussion about possible options including another reclassification and the Board of Adjustment process. Ms. Corbin then spoke and said that the airport has had more of an impact on the neighborhood than the "I -2" rezoning of the property under consideration would. After several other comments, staff indicated that they preferred the Board of Adjustment option because it restricts the use and requires a site plan. Mr. Davis asked about speeding up the process because of the time factor. There was a long discussion and then Ms. Corbin requested that the rezoning request be withdrawn from consideration. A motion was made to withdraw the "I -2" rezoning and to refund the application fee or request the Board of Adjustment to waive the filing fee. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 16, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z -4774 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Avis Mitchell J. Kay Holt 9624 West Markham Rezone from "R -2" to "C -1" Gift Shop /Art Studio with Retail Sales 0.25 acres Existing Use: Vacant Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" South - Church, Zoned "R -2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R -2" West - Office, Zoned "0 -3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The request is to rezone a residential lot from "R -2" to "C -1" with the proposed use being a gift shop /art studio with retail sales. The site is situated along the north side of West Markham Road, between I -430 and Barrow Road. This portion of West Markham is somewhat unique because of the zoning pattern that has developed over the years. To the west of this property, the zoning is primarily nonresidential and includes "0 -2," 110 -3," "C -3" and "PCD" with very few "R -2" parcels remaining. Between the property in question and Barrow Road, all of the lots are zoned "R -2" except for the southwest corner of Barrow Road and West Markham which is zoned "C -3." The land use along West Markham to the east is residential with nonresidential to the west towards the I- 430 /Shackleford Road area. The site abuts "0 -3" property on the west and "R -2" lots on the north and east. The "0 -3" track has one office on it, and a majority of it is owned by the church located directly across West Markham which uses it primarily for parking. Several months ago, a PCD application was filed for a portion of that property to allow a small scale shopping center. The request was finally withdrawn from consideration. An effort has been made over the years to establish an office corridor along West Markham and to avoid an undesirable commercial strip of which this rezoning proposal could be the start of. December 16, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued 2. The site is occupied by one single family residence, and because of the lot's somewhat unusual shape, it has a fairly large rear yard area. 3. There are no right -of -way requirements or Master Street Plan issues. 4. A detailed site plan must be submitted in order to determine the access points and parking layout for the site. It appears from the drawing of the lot that access as well as parking will be a major problem. 5. There are no legal issues associated with this request. 6. There is no neighborhood position or documented history on the site. 7. Staff feels that the request is inappropriate for the location and does not support the "C -1" rezoning. This position is consistent with attempts to rezone other locations in the immediate area for commercial purposes. Most recently, a "C -3" application was filed for 9923 West Markham just west of Oak Lane. Staff recommended denial of "C -3," and during the public hearing, the owner amended the request to "0-3" which was approved by the Planning Commission. Other cases have either been withdrawn or denied. The existing "C -3" center on the south side of West Markham was approved many years ago and a recent attempt to expand it was rejected by the City. The current request could establish unwanted precedent and lead to a commercial strip along this section of West Markham. The I -430 Plan recommends that the commercial zoning be concentrated at major intersections, such as West Markham and Shackleford, and not allow a random commercial zoning pattern to develop. The request is in conflict with the I -430 Plan which shows the property for continued single family use. One final item is the Bill of Assurance for the Santa Fe Heights Subdivision. The Bill of Assurance states that "no lot shall be used except for residential purposes." The covenants were recorded in 1959 to run for a period of 25 years with automatic extensions of 10 year periods unless changed by a majority of the property owners through the necessary instrument. It appears that no changes have been made to this point. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C -1" request as filed. December 16, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by Neal Cook. There were four objectors in attendance. Mr. Cook said that the necessary parking could be provided and that the use would improve the property. He also pointed out that the site was the only lot in the Santa Fe Heights Addition that fronted West Markham. George Gillian, property owner directly to the west, then addressed the Commission. He said that the neighborhood was opposed to the request, and if the zoning was approved, it could create some problems. Mr. Gillian also expressed concerns with parking and possible signs. Ms. Ann Cheairs opposed the rezoning and asked that the residential character of the neighborhood be maintained. Randy Kersten requested that the "C -1" rezoning be denied. Mr. Cook then made several additional comments. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "C -1" request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The rezoning was denied. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3__�__r -�__. NAME: Wood Creek LOCATION: South side of West Markham Parkway, West of Pride Valley Road, West end of Huckleberry Drive T1RX7FT.r)D FA . VMr_ TMV VD . Winrock Development White - Daters and Associates, Company, Inc. Inc. P.O. Box 8080 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 663 -5340 Telephone: 374 -1666 AREA: 33.27 acres NO. OF LOTS: 96 FT. NEW STREET: 4900 ZONING: "R -2" /Outside City PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request: 1. To preliminary plat 33.27 acres into 96 lots and 4900 feet of new street for single family use. B. Existing Conditions: Single family area located at urban fringe, floodway on property. C. Issues /Discussions /Le gal /Technical /Design: 1. Indicate sidewalks. 2. Show boundaries of City /State intentions for annexation. 3. Give notice according to Ordinance if required. 4. Indicate abutting property owners and plats as required per Ordinance. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued 5. Lots abutting Pride Valley and West Markham should have building lines that exceed 25 feet. D. Engineering Comments 1. Show calculation and detention facilities. 2. Show minimum flood elevation on Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 5. 3. Make Wood Creek Drive perpendicular to West Markham Parkway. 4. Dedicate floodway. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed. The applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments. 1. Water - Water main extension plus on -site fire protection required. An acreage charge of $300 per acre will apply. 2. Additional easements shall be required around the closed sewer mains. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported at the agenda meeting that during Subdivision Committee, the applicant had requested to go back to the plan originally submitted with minor modifications, but which would serve to address any objection by the abutting December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued church. Parkway Church was concerned about the revision on the revised plan that removed Huckleberry from its original position as a perimeter street and left them with what they considered to be inadequate excess. There was no objection to the applicant's request. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. _4�._� NAME: Sandpiper West LOCATION: Bowman Road, 1 mile south of Kanis DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Winrock Development Co. White - Daters and Associates Inc. 401 Victory Street P.O. Box 8080 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: 374 -1666 Telephone: 663 -5340 AREA: 65.36 Acres NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Residential 143 FT. NEW STREET: 6300 A. Proposal /Request: 1. To preliminary plat 65.36 acres into 143 lots and 6300 feet of street for single family use. 2. Variances Requested: A. 15 foot building lines as shown on preliminary. B. Double frontage on Bowman Road. C. In -lieu fee contribution on Bowman as per Bowman Road study. D. Length of five percent tangent at intersection of Shady Creek Drive /Woodridge Drive. B. Existing Conditions: Single family area on fringes of City, floodway on property. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. State use of tracts. 2. Give justifications /request variance or lots exceeding lot to depth ratio. 3. 15 foot building line variance. 4. Give justification for all requested variances. 5. Show sidewalks. 6. Give notice if required. 7. Indicate abutting ownerships according to Ordinance requirements. 8. Building line in excess of 25 feet required on lots abutting Bowman Road. D. Engineering Comments: 1. No problem with variance. 2. Provide justification for D. 3. All access on double frontage lots should be off Ridgewood. 4. Show sidewalks on internal streets. 5. Show floodplain and 100 year flood elevations. 6. Explain use of Tracts B and C. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments made. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that Tract A was reserved and Tracts B, C, and D would be open space. He requested waivers of the lot to depth requirement and agreed to provide street improvements and sidewalks as required by Ordinance, and to get with Enginering regarding the waiver requested (D). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval subject to sidewalks, Shady Creek and Forest Brook Drives was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. _5 w NAME: LOCATION: T1F.VP.T.(1PF.P Rock Creek Square Southwest corner of Markham and Bowman Pinkerton Architects and Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson Construction Managers and Associates, Inc. 12702 Hillcrest Road P.O. Box 3837 Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72203 -3837 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 375 -5331 Telephone: (214) 991 -7881 AREA: 13.181 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial Center A. Pr02Osal /Request: 1. To preliminary plat 13.181 acres into 2 lots for commercial development. 2. To plat a buildable area on Lot 2, which will allow placement of the building at the rear lot line. 3. 15 foot right -of -way dedication along Bowman and 1/2 street improvements for 60 foot five lane section of street along the property boundary. 4. Request that OCP propose an Ordinance to correct or update the existing one to clarify requirement of architectural design review of proposed developments on this property (as recorded in restrictive covenant No. 78- 3304A). This is due to the fact that the review committee for this purpose was never active and is now disbanded. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued B. Existinq Conditions: Area developing as commercial, elevations range from 410 feet to 450 feet. C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Identify ownership of out - parcel. 2. Discuss applicants request. D. Engineering_Comments: 1. Reserve parcel - dentify ownership. 2. Five lanes on West Markham Street. 3. One new lane to be built. 4. Bowman Road - five lane section and turning bay tapered to four lane section on south end. 5. All entrances should be a minimum of 36 foot in width. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments made. Staff is concerned about the responsibility for street improvements abutting the out - parcel. If this is not in the applicants ownership, then perhaps the participation of the abutting owner could be solved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant stated that the out - parcel was within his ownership and he would get with Engineering to work out the required improvements. Staff agreed to pursue the elimination of the restrictive covenants since the area had been developed without adhering to it. Water - On -site fire protection required. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to an agreement with Engineering regarding improvements, and working with the staff on eliminating the restrictive covenants. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Bixler Commercial Subdivision Replat, Lot 4 LOCATION: NE Corner of Markham and I -430 r)VXTVT_l1DL'D . VMn TMV VD . West Markham Assoc. /Jim Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, Hathaway and Assoc. 1500 Worthen Bank 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -1700 Phone: 375 -5331 AREA: 865 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 950 ZONING: "C- 3"/ "0 -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 9501. 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued 2. Give internal street name (see David Hathcock) - 371 -4808. D. Engineering 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. E. 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 agree 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 regarding 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. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - 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 SUBDIVISIONS .item N,o.�6 ,ntinued 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7� NAME: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Edmondson's Replat LOC_ATI.O_N: Fourche Dam Pike and Cooper Road Earl T. Edmondson Robert C. Lowe, Jr., and 5701 Kellett Road Associates Little Rock, AR 10510 I -30, Suite 5 Little Rock, AR 72209 Telephone: 562 -7215 AREA: 1.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Proposal /Request: 1. To plat 1.5 acres into 3 lots. 2. Variances Requested: A. Boundary street improvements - cost will be in excess of value of the land. B. Application be considered as a staff matter due to the limited amount of time and pressure from Airport Commission. B. Existing Conditions: One existing single family residence on property, no curbs, gutters, drainage facilities, or sanitary sewer service available. Both Fourche Dam Pike and Cooper Road is asphalt paved 17 feet wide with side road ditches. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Waiver of boundary street improvements. D. Engineering Comments: Comments reserved until meeting. E. Staff Recommendation: Reserved until meeting. The applicant is being forced to move from his present location due to the expansion of the Little Rock Airport, he also asked that the Commission consider that he is not a developer by choice, but out of necessity; and he is being pressed to vacate the premises by the Airport Commission. Also, he has recently been in the hospital for the amputation of one of his feet. He was unaware that replatting was required until he purchased the property. The Pulaski County Health Unit has stated that they will approve septic tanks if percolation tests and lot sizes are sufficient. The applicant doesn't feel that granting the requested waiver constitutes favortism, but rather the City helping one of its citizens solve what is for him a very serious problem. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee felt that more facts were needed to make an adequate decision on whether or not to apply the City's policy of a 15 percent contribution from the applicant for the cost of the improvements. Staff was asked to contact the Airport Commission on their procedure for moving persons and the amount of federal money paid to this owner. Since this is a new subdivision, one Committee member felt that it differed from the usual application of the 15 percent policy. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Lowe represented the developer. Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) street improvements on Fourche Dam Pike as specified by City engineers, (2) drainage improvements be paved over with no curb and gutter, and (3) a waiver of street improvements on Cooper Road. Staff talked with the Airport Commission and felt that there would be adequate relocation expenses to pay for some improvements. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 abstention (Massie). December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: Lots 5 and 6, Block "AR," Westpark Development LOCATION: West Side of 1300 Block of Westpark Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: 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. Engineering Comments: 1. Dedicate floodway before final plat is signed. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 2. One hundred year flood info on plat is wrong - 1' should be 21. 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 Uto produce a second lot for sale. He further stated that th.i existing plat did not dedicate SUBDIVISIONS Item iNo 8" 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 �- NAME: r ^nr mTe%%? _ DEVELOPER: Winrock Development Co., Inc. P.O. Box 8080 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: 663 -5340 Summit Ridge West off Kirby Road, .3 miles North of Kanis ENGINEER: White - Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 374 -1666 AREA: 25.63 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 86 FT. NEW STREET: 3500 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request: 1. To plat 25.63 acres into 86 lots and 3500 feet of street for sinqle family use. 2. Variances Requested: A. 15 feet building line on specified lots. B. Waiver of sidewalks along Summit Ridge Drive due to the fact that Summit Ridge Drive ties into a short stub street and Parkway Place #3 which has no sidewalks and since all traffic will be internalized and no through traffic will be experienced. Summit Ridge Drive will function as a minor residential street. 3. Improvements to include the west half of Kirby Road to collector standards and construction of a sidewalk. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued B. Existinq Conditions: Single family area, elevations range from 470 feet to 530 feet. C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Identify use and maintenance of tracts. 2. 15 foot building line requested - indicate lots. 3. Show sidewalks on plat. 4. Lots on Kirby to have building lines in excess of 25 feet. 5. Give notice if required. 6. Show abutting ownership as required. D. Engineering Comments: 1. Show calculations and location of stormwater detention facilities. 2. Right -of -way dedication and improvements on Kanis Road. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to provide sidewalks on Kanis, Kirby, Summit Ridge, Wind Ridge, and Stone Gate. The applicant requested a 25 foot building line on Lot 16, 22, and 8 through 10. Water - Water main extension, plus on -site fire protection is required. Sewer - Additional easements shall be required around proposed sewer mains. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval according to comments made was passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Danny Thomas and Assoc. A. Proposal /Request: Woodland Hills Replat, Phase II, Lots 38R -43R North Side of Forest Lane, approximately 32' east of Aspen Drive Daters, White, and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 1. To replat nine lots into six for single family use. 2. The new lots will be 60' at the building line and meet requirements for "R -2" zoning. B. Existinq Conditions: Single family area. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: None at this time. D. Engineering Comments: None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: Barton Oaks, Phase II "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4777) LOCATION: Southwest corner of 2nd and Park DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Robert Rees Brooks and Curry 1709 Covey Road P.O. Box 897 Jonesboro, AR 72401 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Telephone: 935 -2607 Telephone: 372 -2131 AREA: 10,500 Square Feet NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -4" PROPOSED USE: Apartments A. Proposal /Request: 1. To rezone property for PUD for use as 14 one (1) bedroom apartments on 10,500 square feet. 2. Provision of 21 parking spaces. B. Existing Conditions: One -story frame structure in disrepair existing on the property. Boundary uses include an improved alley on the west, fourplex to the west of the alley, and apartments located to the north. The block to the south is composed mainly of rental units. C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Density - staff recommends reduction of density. 2. Inadequate parking. 3. Show landscaping. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued 4. Clarify Lot 2 - 1/2 lot shown (replat required of currently divided - present evidence of when divided). D. Engineering Comments: 1. Inadequate amount of parking spaces shown. 2. Show handicapped parking. 3. Redesign parking lot - see Traffic Engineer. E. Staff Recommendation: Reserved until further information is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was asked to reduce his density to 8 units, show a 15 foot setback on both streets and a 7 foot side yard, show landscaping and parking as required, and to relocate the dumpster from the front yard and from in the driveway. Sewer - Existing 8 inch sewer line is located under proposed b liu ding. Sewer line or proposed building must be relocated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. - 12___� NAME: T_nr AmTnAI. OWNER /APPLICANT: South Broadway Conditional Use Permit (Z- 4218 -A) The Southeast corner of 23rd Street and South Broadway 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. Compatibility With Neighborhood 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 Parking 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - 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. Citv Engineerinq 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - 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. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Galusha Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 2015 Hillsborough Lane APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Harry Galusha 2015 Hillsborough Lane Little Rock, AR A. Proposal /Request: 1. To encroach approximately 14.5' into an area established by a 25' building line for the construction of a 14' x 20' garden- storage building. B. Existing Conditions: 1. Single family area. 2. Lot drops off in rear to form a 20' cliff down to Hinson Road. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Filing of a one lot final replat. D. Engineering_Comments: None. E. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to comments made. The applicants explained that their building was almost completed when it was discovered that they were violating the building line. They feel that it would not adversely affect the area since it will not be seen from inside the subdivision and only partially from Hinson Road. They stated that they've been limited in finding alternate locations for the building, due to the drastic drop in the terrain on the east side of their property. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued A petition signed by owners in Phase I of Hillsborough Subdivision and letters from abutting property owners have been submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to plant pine trees between the fence and the top of the cut. No other problems were found. A one lot final replat will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 NAME: Salazar Building Line Waiver (Lot 168, Kingwood Place) LOCATION: Circlewood Road at Hillwood Road APPLICANT: Kevin Shook for Chris Salazar 3023 Circlewood Little Rock, AR A. Proposal /Request: 1. To encroach 16' into an area established by a 20' building line for construction of a garage. B. Existing Conditions: Single family area. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design: 1. Notification to neighbors. D. Engineering Comments: 1. Have maximum 20' opening for drive - install curb and gutter. E. Staff Recommendation: Denial, subject to Engineering's comments and one lot final replat. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow enough room for the construction of a one -car garage with storage room. The house was recently bought and does not currently have a garage. The storage area will allow removal of the metal building. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff felt that this proposal overbuilt the lot and destracted from the aesthetic value of the neighborhood, due to its being the only intrusion in the area, and its close proximity to the street. Staff was asked to inform the Applicant, who was not present, to hand carry notice to neighboring property owners within at least 7 days before the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended denial due to the potential for adverse effects to the neighborhood and adequate room in the rear of the structure for an addition. A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass. The vote was: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 -_Alley Right -of -Way Abandonmenty - - -, NAME: The alley in Block 5, Centennial Addition LOCATION: The north 138.5 feet of the alley between Battery Street and Wolfe Street running south off West 12th Street OWNER /APPLICANT: Jim Irwin for Various Owners REQUEST: To abandon the right -of -way and join with the abutting lots for redevelopment of the corner as a restaurant STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way None evidenced by our review and contacts made. 2. Master Street Plan There are no requirements associated with this request. 3. Need for Riqht -of -Way on Adjacent Streets None evidenced by our review and contacts. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Generally flat ground with fences and structures lying in close proximity. 5. Development Potential None, except as a part of redevelopment of the adjacent parcels at the corner of West 12th and Battery Streets. That corner is to be developed as a fast food restaurant with portions of this right -of -way being included for parking and drive. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The land use mix is generally nonresidential within this block and blocks lying north, east, and west with the uses being medical or commercial. Residential properties lie in blocks to the south. 7. Neighborhood Position No opposition at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities No adverse effect reported except that the right -of -way should be retained as a utility easement. 9. Reversionary Rights Each abutting owner will receive 1/2 of the right -of -way after abandonment. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this unneeded right -of -way will return to private use a usable tract of land and provide a tract productive for the tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request subject to retention of the right -of -way as a utility and /or drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16-86) The staff presented its recommendation of approval. The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the petition. The vote 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 -_Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: REQUEST: The alley and Block 2, Forbes Addition Running south off Longfellow Lane one half block east of Beverly Place Allen Whisenhunt for Various Owners To abandon the right -of -way and join with the adjacent residential lots for their use STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way None inasmuch as the alley has not been in use as a conventional alley and is not now open through the block. 2. MASTER Street Plan There are no requirements attached to this request. 3. Need for Right- of -Wav on Adjacent Streets None observed in our review. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The right -of -way appears to be built up with encroachment of walls, fences, and plantings. 5. Development Potential None, except as part of yard use area of the abuttinq lots. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect No adverse effect. Each abutting owner is participating in the closure and there are no others with use potential. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 7. Neighborhood Position No opposition reported at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities None reported except Arkansas Power and Light with a request for retention as a utility easement. 9. Reversionary Rights Each of the several owners abutting will receive 1/2 of the right -of -way. 10. Public Welfare and Safetv Issues The abandonment of this right -of -way will return to the tax base a tract of land that can be owner usable and productive for the tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as filed subject to the retention of the right -of -way as a utility easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The staff presented its recommendation in which it noted that Mr. Whiesenhunt had left the meeting earlier. Mr. Whiesenhunt had offered to the staff a written response to a staff concern relative to Fire Department access to this block. The Fire Marshall's Office had pointed out that adandonment of the alley would forever eliminate the potential for opening a fire service access to the middle of this block. In place of the alley, the Fire Marshall had suggested that a parallel driveway from Longfellow Lane be provided. The parallel easement would overlay an existing driveway servicing a house in the southern half of this block. The Fire Department sees this access as necessary December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued to assure accessibility to several large homes within this block. Mr. Whiesenhunt's communication from the owners of the involved lots reflects their desire to cooperate with the Fire Department. Mr. Whiesenhunt has offered to provide for the record an easement deed prior to the Board's Ordinance passage in January. .There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the petition subject to the provision of the access easement. The vote on the motion 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No_. 18_.- Other Matters - Street Name Change _ NAME: Coquina Court LOCATION: Lying north off Pleasant Ridge Road less that 1/4 mile east of Hinson Road PETITIONER: Dr. William T. Henry, Agent for the abutting owners REQUEST: To chanqe the name to Cherry Creek Court ABUTTING USES AND OWNERSHIP: All of the abutting lots are residential with six new homes under construction with the remaining lots being vacant and for sale. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECT: Little or none inasmuch as none of the homes are occupied at this time. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION: At this writing, there are no objectors. EFFECT,ON PUBLIC SERVICES None expected. All utilities, Fire, Police, and post office are aware of the action. At this writing, no adverse comment has been received. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request with a condition that the street name have the appropriate suffix for a cul -de -sac street; in this instance the word court. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12- 16 -86) The Planning staff offered its recommendation. The application was represented by Dr. Henry. There were no objectors in attendance. Dr. Henry offered for the record a request of the owners that the street name be changed to Cherry Creek Cove as opposed to Cherry Creek Court now represented in the application. The staff indicated that there would be no problem in making such a modification inasmuch as Cove and Court both serve to identify a dead end street with a cul -de -sac. After a brief discussion of the proposal, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the name change. The vote on the motion to approve 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: Fletcher Meadows - Phasing Plan and Final PUD Approval APPLICANT: City of Little Rock Department of Human and General Resources ENGINEERS: White, Daters, and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374 -1666 STAFF REPORT: This is a request to approve a phasing plan for this development and to receive Commission review for the final plan /plat of an approved long -form "PRD." QrPAPP 1?Vr0MM1iRnArPTr)N1 Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. December 16, 1986 Item No. 20 - Amendment to the Master Street Plan - Alignment of the Rock Creek Parkway 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. December 16, 1986 Item No. 20 - 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). DATE J)w. 1"21 1980 ·ZONING MEMBER W.Riddick, III J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson W.Rector W.Ketcher D.Arnett O. J. Jones I.Boles F.Perkins PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS SUBDIVISION /) 8 � I 2 3 +-5 b 7 I?, q /D II v' ✓✓ / • ✓ / / / ✓ /✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ • ✓ / / / / / / / ✓ l1J ✓✓ / • / / / ./ Ah / / / ✓ v ✓ ✓ ✓#✓,/ / / ,/ / ✓ ./ ✓' ✓✓ ✓ /J A I). ✓ ,4 A rt A-/ / ,4 ✓✓ ✓✓ " ✓ ./ / / / / ✓✓ ✓ v ✓ / ✓ � ✓✓ / / /· / / ,✓ ✓ ✓/ ✓✓ I ✓ / / / / ./ / / v � •y / ;; 11-✓ ,/ Ill A A,/ ,/ # / ✓ / ✓• ✓ / / / / ✓✓ / ✓ ✓ lid ✓ / 'v / / / /✓ / ✓ � ✓AYE • NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN /..z, /<3 JjZ1 JS"" ✓•✓ ✓ v • ✓ •✓, ✓ , ✓ " ✓ A . JI A-/ , / -/ 1/13 -✓ •· ✓ ✓ ✓• / A-/f A / ✓/•✓'· / ✓•✓ /t / ✓ / / A- ✓ / ✓ ,,4 / ✓ 11 l1a ✓/ ✓/ / ✓ / / / / ✓ / / ✓· / ✓/ / / / ✓ /9 / / -✓ 1/ v/ 1-/ ✓ / / / December 16, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business, the meeting wa$ adjourned at 6 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date