Loading...
pc_08 11 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1987 1 :00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Walter G. Riddick Jerilyn Nicholson Bill Rector Richard Massie John Schlereth Betty Sipes Fred Perkins David Jones Rose Collins Members Absent: William Ketcher City Attorney: Pat Benton LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES AUGUST 11, 1987 DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Echo Valley Lot Split - Lots 121A -121B (623 -B) B. Geyerwoods Preliminary Plat (680 -A) C. Metrailer Medical Clinic - Planned Commercial District (Z -4850) D. Austin Development - Planned Commercial District (Z -4856) E. West Markham Auto Mall - Planned Commercial District (Z- 2245 -C and 261) PRELIMINARY PLATS 1. Executive Center Part II (280) 2. Longlea Manor, Lots 65 -72 and 89 -98 (128R) 3. Carrollton Addition (299) 4. Markham Commercial Subdivision (Lots 11A, 12, Tract A) 641 -D 5. Kanis Commercial Park Addition Revised (636 -C) 6. Woodlake Addition (286) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 7. Eagle Point - Planned Residential District (Z- 4451 -D) 8. Heritage Park - Planned Industrial District (Z -4877) 9. Mitchell - Planned Commercial District (Z- 4066B) 10. Bon -Aire - Planned Residential District (Z -4861) 11. Circlewood - Planned Residential District (Z -4860) 12. Hunters Cove - Building Line Modification SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13. Tanglewood Montessori School (Z- 4027 -A) 14. Thomas Memorial Baptist Church (Z -4875) 15. Charity Commercial Church (Z -4876) 16. New Hope Church of the Nazarene (Z -4878) 17. Lighthouse Center Church (Z -4880) OTHER MATTERS 18. Edgerstoune Planned Residential District Revocation 19. Secluded Hills - Revised Preliminary Plat August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Echo Valley, Lots 121A and 121B LOCATION: Between Millbrook Road and Breckenridge Drive DEVELOPER: Wayne Cotsell, ATF 2910 Millbrook Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: White - Daters and Associates, Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone No. 374 -1666 AREA: .3693 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: "R -2" A. Existing Conditions Established single family area. B. Proposal To replat .3693 acres into two lots of single family use. C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design (1) Notification to adjacent property owners. (2) Amendment of the Bill of Assurance will be required. (3) Possible platted vehicle prohibition zone on original plat. (4) Fifteen (15) foot building line. (5) See staff for technical plat requirements. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Comments None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reserved until further information is available. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant agreed to provide notice to adjacent property owners. The Traffic Engineer agreed to determine whether there is a traffic problem associated with the driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6- 30 -87) The applicant, Mr. Joe White, was present. The staff offered its comments and responded to questions concerning compatibility with the area as to lot size, Bill of Assurance, and other items. Mr. White addressed these issues by responding that some he could not answer at this occasion, but that the access prohibition and planning easement along the upper street was of record. A Mr. Michael Gareollio, an adjacent property owner, offered concerns about traffic safety and Bill of Assurance conformity. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that a deferral was in order to permit this owner and neighbors sufficient time to review the Bill of Assurance. A motion was made to defer the application to August 11, the next scheduled Subdivision Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7- 23 -87) Mr. Joe White of White - Daters Engineers was present and reported to the Committee that the Bill of Assurance on this plat has expired. It was developed without benefit of an automatic extension clause. Discussion was held by the Committee relative to the Traffic Engineer's comments August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued wherein he objected to access on the uphill side of the lots. There is currently a platted access prohibition along this street. Mr. White indicated he would work with the Bill of Assurance on the access easement with the hope that it could be resolved by the meeting on August 11. At that time, he would report on their progress. Mr. White also indicated that it might be possible to gain involvement of the additional three lots that lie in the same relationship as this one. The potential of all four lots involved would increase the possibility of doing a better access relationship on the uphill side. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) Mr. Joe White was present and offered a response to the questions posed at the Subdivision Committee meeting. He said that he had met with Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office on the site and had agreed to a driveway design that was workable. A design was filed for record indicating an eight percent grade within the street right -of -way and 15 percent on the driveway. The design for this drive includes a turnaround to provide head -in reentry to the street. Henk Koornstra stated his agreement with the report of Mr. White. Mr. White continued his report by stating that the Bill of Assurance on this subdivision was determined to be valid and that it does not have an access prohibition from either end of the lot but does include a 10 -foot planting easement along one end. Mr. White also stated that any architectural review committee provided for within the Bill of Assurance is not now an issue as its provisions have expired. In addition, he reported that an adjacent lot has already made this split and a third potential lot split exists. A discussion of multiple lot access by an internal driveway followed with Henk Koornstra stating that he preferred that solution. Mr. White stated that his client cannot commit the other lot owners with respect to a common access. After a brief discussion of the issues presented, a motion was made to approve the lot split with the driveway as agreed upon by Henk Koornstra and the rescinding of the planting easement. It was noted that an amendment of the Bill of Assurance will probably be required. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Geyerwood Subdivision LOCATION: Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR DEVELOPER: Lloyd Stone #3 Lexington Drive Conway, AR 72032 Phone: 372 -4867 ENGINEER: Eddie Branton Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372 -4930 AREA: 3.348 acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 825 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USES: "R -2" Single Family Residential A. Staff Report The applicant has submitted a revised plan eliminating the two rows of lots that prevented compliance with the known depth requirement of the ordinance on a previous submittal. He now shows one buildable lot in this location. B. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to removal of the island and redesign to standard cul -de -sac. C. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant agreed to comply with staff's recommendation. He explained that the southern tract is intended to be used when additional property is purchased which will allow adherence to the City's lot size requirements. He was asked to identify the tract as such on the plat. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87) The applicant was present. There were objectors in attendance. After a brief exchange between the parties, the Planning Commission determined that a deferral until August 11 would be in order. The deferral would allow sufficient time for the neighborhood to familiarize the involved parties with the proposal. A motion to this effect passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) There was a brief discussion of this proposal. No new issues were developed. The petitioner indicated he had not been in contact with the neighborhood. Staff reported it was awaiting participation of the neighbors as far as information. Staff indicated it would report on the status of its contacts with the neighbors prior to the hearing on the 11th. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) There was no one present to represent the application. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, the Commission approved a motion to defer this plat until September 22, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C NAME: Metrailer Medical Clinic Short Form PCD - Z -4850 LOCATION: 1200 and 1204 N. Harrison (NW Corner of Harrison and Evergreen) DEVELOPER: James A. Metrailer #3 Biscayne Court Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 225 -4195 664 -1540 ARCHITECT: Greg Peckham Allison, Moses, Redden 225 Fast Markham - Suite 400 Heritage East Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 375 -0378 AREA: .32 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Medical Clinic A. Developmental Concept (1) To provide easy access to medical care and benefit the neighborhood, since most of the applicant's patients are elderly and live in the area. (2) To provide design which will incorporate traditionally residential forms and scales in an effort to maintain compatibility with adjacent single family structures. B. Existing Conditions Single family to north and west, apartments across street to the east, and commercial to the northeast of this site abutting the apartments. C. Proposal (1) To construct a doctor's office of 3,200 square feet on a vacant parcel of .32 acres. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued (2) Provision of 18 parking spaces which amount to six per physician. (3) Use of the abutting alley on the west for secondary access. D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design (1) Inappropriate land use. (2) Noncompliance with land use plan. E. Engineering Comments (1) Alley improved to property line. (2) Show handicapped parking. F. Staff Recommendation Denial. Staff fears that proposed use will have deleterious affect on single family area that may lead to destabilization in the area. The land use plan indicates single family for the site. G. Subdivision Committee Review The primary consideration was identified as the appropriateness of the proposed use on this site in what is generally a residential area. Staff stated a preference for orientation of the building to the east, if it is any use beside residentially approved. The applicant was informed that a 60 -foot right -of -way was needed on Evergreen, and this would interfere with spacing for parking. He was asked to visit with his neighbors regarding the plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87) The applicant was not present. The staff reported that a letter requesting deferral until August 11 had been properly filed. The Commission placed this item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion on the consent agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) There was no discussion of this matter inasmuch as no one was present to represent the proposal. Staff reported that there had been no contact with the applicant and no further changes recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The Planning staff restated its recommendation of denial and added that the staff position was based upon the Heights /Hillcrest Plan that did not support nonresidential uses off Kavanaugh Boulevard. Plus, it was felt that this could be the forerunner of other business activity or intrusion along Harrison Street or Evergreen. The staff felt this was especially so inasmuch as some owners in the Harrison block have expressed an interest in commercial zoning. The applicant, Dr. Metrailer, was present and offered comments on his history in the area, plus his patients living nearby. He addressed the staff recommendation relative to redesign to front the building on Harrison Street. He offered that his current operation was a 10:30 a.m. to 4 or 5 p.m. activity with 10 to 15 patients per day. The staff then made record notice of some 11 cards in support of the Planned Unit Development and three cards and one letter opposed. A brief discussion followed wherein strip zoning was assessed as to potential follow -up on this action. The Commission position disagreed with staff on the possibility. Henk Koornstra then stated that additional right -of -way for Evergreen was a requirement of the Master Street Plan as a collector. The right -of -way needed approximately two and a half to five feet with at least 30 feet as measured from the centerline of the existing right -of -way. A discussion of the office hours and the number of doctors that would operate from this facility resulted in commitments by Dr. Metrailer to three doctors with 50 patients. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued The staff maintained its position of opposition citing the potential deleterious impact on the neighborhood, the conflict with the Heights- Hillcrest Plan and potential for expansion of nonresidential use along both Evergreen and North Harrison Street. A lengthy discussion followed which resulted in a motion to approve the Planned Commercial District with the following conditions: 1. Access restricted to Harrison Street. 2. A limit of three doctors with 50 patients total per day. 3. Hours of operation to be from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 4. Provision of 18 parking spaces, including two employee spaces behind the building adjacent to the alley. 5. A six -foot opaque wood fence along the alley property line. 6. No access to be taken from the alley. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No D NAME: Austin Development Company Long -Form PCD (Z -4856) LOCATION: 1200' South of I -430 and Shackleford DEVELOPER: Austin Development Co. 2216 W. 43rd Street Meridian, MS 39305 Phone: (601) 693 -2703 ENGINEER: Leo Hansen, Architect 311 S.E. 16th Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (305) 527-5973 AREA: 32.4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "O-2" to PCD PROPOSED USE: PCD District REQUEST: To develop 32 acres into a mixed use development. A. Proposal 1. Site Data Site Area 1,413,430 Max. Building Area 565,372 Open Space 141,343 Proposed 274,900 2. Area Summary Office 122,400 Cinema 32,000 Hotel /Convention 115,260 Retail 60,000 Major Retail 60,000 Bank 4,900 Restaurant 5,600 Total Building Area 400,160 August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued 3. Ranking Summary Office 489 Convention 126 Cinema 77 Lounge /Restaurant 168 Hotel 200 Bank 20 Restaurant 73 Total Spaces Required 1,633 Surface 1,474 Below Grade 160 Total Spaces 1,634 Handicapped Spaces 28 THE APPLICANT REQUESTED DEFERRAL OF THIS ITEM TO THE AUGUST 11TH MEETING. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87) The Planning Commission placed this item on the consent agenda for deferral. The motion on the consent agenda passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) Staff reported a request from the developer by letter asking for a second deferral of this item, the deferral to be until September 22. It was pointed out that this will be the second deferral request by the applicant which will require some final action by the Commission in September. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) There was no one present to represent the application. There were no objectors in attendance. A letter was received for the record requesting withdrawal without prejudice as a bylaw exception. A motion was made to accept the request for withdrawal. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E NAME: West Markham Auto Mall Short Form PCD (Z- 2245 -C) LOCATION: Lot 1, West Markham Land Addition to the City of Little Rock DEVELOPER: H. Bradley Walker 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR Phone: 666 -4316 666 -4242 ARCHITECT: Renshaw and Associates Little Rock, AR AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "C -3" to PCD PROPOSED USE: Auto Parts and Supply Mall A. Proposal (1) To provide a speciality shopping center, which provides in one location, several high quality "quick service" automotive retailers which offer various automobile maintenance products and services. (2) Two buildings with 10 to 13 units and a larger building on 2.258 acres. Total square footage is $25,000. (3) 116 parking spaces. B. Engineering Comments (1) Show square footage of landscaped areas. (2) Show floor elevations on buildings. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued (3) Indicate erosion control design on south. (4) Indicate an "exit only" sign on the western drive. C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design (1) Revised site plan to indicate vicinity map, legal description, and full dimensions on drives and parking. (2) Specify use group for Buildings A and B. (3) If service station is planned, needs to be indicated on plan along with pump stations and canopy. (4) Applicant may be required to submit landscaping on perimeter drive to City Beautiful Commission. C. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant submitted a revised site plan that addressed some traffic concerns and changed the building in a northeast corner. He agreed to submit more information on the use groups proposed. Staff's recommendations - approval, subject to comments made, plus: (1) no vehicle access drives on the south side of the building parallel to the creek, in order to reduce noise, and (2) architectural treatment of roof and rear of building parallel to the creeks so as to make it attractive and compatible with the residential area to the south. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-30-87) The applicant was present. The staff offered its recommendation. Mr. Jim Daly and Mr. Brad Walker were present representing the proposal. They offered their comment on the staff recommendation which was an objection to losing access for double loaded type auto uses. Mr. Walker offered to build a fence to screen the rear area of the buldings in lieu of the doors. A general discussion then followed. The Chairman then asked for objectors. There were four in attendance. Mr. George Bowman, of Ashwood Road, discussed the excavation; the unsightly developments along Markham rearing on his neighborhood. The loss of trees to the City flood and drainage project. Mr. Jeff Hoyt addressed his concerns as being sound from this type of use. He offered additional history. Mrs. Agness Beale, an Ashwood resident, offered her concerns and a history of this area. Mr. Robert Brown and Mr. Charles Basham were present representing the property owner to the west. This property was proposed for development and Mr. Brown stated their interest as being in need of cooperation on development of the common access drive on the west boundary of this proposal, plus building orientation and landscaping. A lengthy general discussion followed revolving around fences and height, number of rear garage doors, and use mix. A motion was then made to approve the application which motion included an 8 -foot fence along the south property line limiting the uses to the by -right and conditional use in "C-3" except for auto repair garage, the hours of operation to be limited to 7 a.m. through 7 p.m., and the garage doors on the rear of the building be limited to eight. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 4 noes, and 3 absent. The failure of the motion automatically defers this matter to the next scheduled meeting, August 11, 1987. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) There was no one present representing the application. There was no discussion of the proposal. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff offered its recommendation. Mr. Jim Dailey was present representing the request as was Mr. Wythe Walker. Mr. Dailey offered amendments to the application and an agreement that was developed as the result of neighborhood meetings and discussion with the developer and adjacent property owner. These amendments are as follows: 1. The installation of an automatic three - minute timer on the six doors to be placed in the south wall of the large building. 2. Six overhead doors will be the maximum number of doors on the south wall. 3. The developer has committed in writing that he will erect an eight -foot fence the entire length of this application site plus the full length of the entire plat to the west within one year (copy of letter offered for case file). 4. The hours of operation for the auto related will be 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. 5. The use mix to be limited to those by right in the "C-3" zoning district and certain "C-4" auto related uses except motor rebuilding, will be speciality auto parts installation and such. 6. A new elevation plan to dress up the building and deal with Mr. Basham's proposed project adjacent on the west. Mr. Wythe Walker then offered that the owners of that lot and others that have been sold are agreeable to the fence being erected along the rear lot line. He confirmed his intent to build the fence. The Commission Chairman then asked for objectors to address the issue. Mr. Jeff Hoyt, a nearby resident, stated that the agreement reached was much as Mr. Dailey stated. He said that he felt all of the fence was committed for the entire length of the project on all of the lots in the plat. Mr. Hoyt closed his remarks by saying that he was concerned about enforcement of these provisions especially the doors remaining open. He was instructed by the Commission that the neighborhood had the right and some responsibility to assist in enforcement by calling City August 11 , 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued Hall and reporting what was observed as a violation. Mrs . Agness Beale and Mr. Bowman, residents of Birchwood, then offered comments on the fence and perhaps some zoning action that could commit the fence to the property. A lengthy discussion then followed during which Mr. Basham indicated he was reluctant to accept maintenance responsibility for the fence . When asked, Mr. Walker could not state who would have responsibility for permanent repair or replacement of damaged fencing but that it could be worked out. After further discussion of procedural matters as to involving the sold sites and the commitments offered , a motion was made . The motion was to approve the amended Planned Commercial District application with these conditions: 1. That the south wall of the main building be limited to six overhead doors . 2. The six doors to have automatic closer devices with a maximum three minute open time. 3. That the south property line of the entire subdivision be provided with an eight-foot opaque wood fence and permanent maintenance . This requirement to be resolved before submitting the application to the Board of Directors . 4. The uses to be limited to the "C-3" District use group plus those uses characterized as auto speciality shops from the "C-4" use group. These include such as auto glass and muffler but exclude engine rebuilding, paint, or body shops . 5. Normal business hours for the auto related are to be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 6. Designate the area along the west property line used as common drive as a "No Parking" zone and so marked on-site . 7. Limit to four the number of overhead doors on the west building face adjacent to Mr. Basham' s development and the facade redesign. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. E - Continued 8. Revise the site plan to include all of the conditions. 9. Engineering Division requirements. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 280 NAME: Koger Executive Center - Part II LOCATION: West of Centerview Drive at Executive Center Drive in Koger Executive Center DEVELOPER: Koger Properties 3986 Boulevard Center Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32207 (800) 874 -5270 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson and Associates 201 South Izard - P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375 -5331 AREA: 24.3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: ±700 ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Office Park PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCE REQUESTED: None A. Proposal The applicant has recently purchased this parcel for future expansion of the office park now being developed between this site and Shackleford Road. The Primary reason for this preliminary plat is to set the basic development direction as to streets. There may be further lot replatting in the future as needed. B. Engineering Comments 1. Detention required if the drainage is away from the existing lake. 2. Excavation plan to be submitted before any grading or clearing occurs. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued C. Utility Comment The utility reports received at this writing from Arkla and AP &L approve the plat as submitted. D. Analysis The subject plan is a continuation of the Koger development and will proceed as the market demands with lot sales, size, and orientation scaled to the user needs. This approach has created a desirable and functional office development that enhances the immediate neighborhood. It is understood that this plat is the forerunner of smaller platting actions to define the individual lots. The primary plat purpose is to provide for the street system. The streets in this plat will be constructed as a single construction item prior to final platting of lots. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) No issues were developed on this application other than the write -up. It appears to be a very clean proposal. The applicant's engineer will follow through on Engineering comments. The Little Rock Water Works reported that fire hydrants for internal fire protection system would be required. The Wastewater Utility reported no comment on the proposal. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 128-R NAME: Longlea Manor - Revised Preliminary - Lots 65 -72 and 89 -98 LOCATION: Longtree Drive north of Hinson Road DEVELOPER: Land Projects Partnership 11125 Arcade Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 225 -1127 ENGINEER: Marlar Engineering Co. 5318 JFK Boulevard North Little Rock, AR 72116 753 -1987 AREA: 4 acres NO. OF LOTS: 18 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1,000 foot cul -de -sac length A. Proposal The developers of this acreage have been working with the developer and the engineer of Secluded Hills on the north in order to improve desiqn and lot usage. The design change will allow the easternmost street to be relocated to a point 125 feet from the east property line. This is the point where it enters the Secluded Hills Addition. The cul -de -sac immediately west of that street will extend northward approximately 200 feet and remain a cul -de -sac. The number of lots will decrease by three due to the elimination of several large deep lots. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued B. Engineering Comments Engineering offers no comments at this writing. C. Utility Comment At this writing Bell Telephone is the only response; they request additional easements. D. Analysis The staff view of this plat is that if better lots and better circulation can be gained then we support the modification. This plat has been on preliminary approval for seven or more years and only since early 1985 or so has final platting been active. Extension of the preliminary plat was authorized by the Planning Commission. The Planning staff has contacted the developer on the north and is coordinating the plan changes so as to provide for a smooth transition of streets from one plat to the other. Pat McGetrick, the Project Engineer on Secluded Hill, has redesigned that plat to make it compatible with this design. A revised preliminary of Secluded Hills will be submitted to the Commission shortly. E. Staff Recommenation Approval of the revisions subject to coordination of changes with Secluded Hills developer and some minor plat additions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7- 23 -87) A brief discussion of this proposal indicated that there were no issues of significance. The only purpose in this plat was to realign with the plat on the north and provide a better lot layout and to move away from a design which was originally geared to the inadequate sewer service in the area. The Committee also discussed adding to this agenda the Secluded Hills plat for preliminary plat revision. Mr. Bill Hastings represented that development. That August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued item will be included at the Committee's direction as Item 19 on this agenda. The Little Rock Water Works reported that a main extension for this area will be required at a somewhat larger size than had previously been required. The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has no requests. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 299 NAME: Carrollton Addition LOCATION: SE Corner of Napa Valley at Rainwood Road DEVELOPER: Norman Holcomb 5518 "A" Street Little Rock, AR 664 -1582 ENGINEER: Samuel L. Davis 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR AREA: 6.9 acres NO. OF LOTS: 30 FT. NEW STREET: 860 ZONING: "R -2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 23.05 WAIVERS: Cul -de -sac length - 811 feet requested 750 foot max A. Proposal To preliminary plat 30 single family lots on an elongated tract bounded by an arterial street on the west and a collector street on the north. A single point of access is proposed off Napa Valley. The lot sizes will be 60 feet wide by 120 feet in depth. They will be somewhat deeper in the second phase of the plat. The cul -de -sac proposed is in excess of the ordinance maximum at 811 feet. Napa Valley and Rainwood are proposed for widening per Master Street Plan. B. Engineering Comments 1. An access easement should be provided along the west line of Lot 21 in order to access the detention area to the south of Lots 21 and 23. This access should be called out in the Bill of Assurance so that no fences, structures, or other August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued impediments to the movement of traffic or equipment be placed in the easement. This is to ensure proper access for maintenance of the detention facilities. 2. The Engineering Department requires that access for individual lots for driveways off Rainwood be designed as joint driveways on every other property corner. This is to produce less conflict with traffic movement. C. Analysis This tract represents one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the area. It presents some problems for design as well as significant street improvements. Planning and the Engineering staffs feel that an access off Rainwood with a cul-de-sac backing lots to Napa Valley will avoid a potentially bad access situation. We would recommend that a design be pursued that would simply turn the street from its present cul-de-sac location northward into Rainwood. The length of the cul-de-sac would be generally the same and the design circumstances with respect to sidewalk and street construction should be very similar. D. Utility Comments The receiving agencies at this time report the plat is approved as submitted. These were AP &L and Arkla. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to: (1) Sidewalks on the internal street and resolution of the sidewalk issue along Rainwood which currently calls for sidewalks on the north side of the street. (2) Street improvements of 36 feet in 60 foot of right-of-way on Rainwood Road. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued (3) Forty -eight (48) foot street improvement in an 80 foot right -of -way on Napa Valley Road. (4) Minor plat omissions. (5) A uniform plan presented to control access to the lots between the new street and Rainwood. Access should be provided to these lots from one side or the other but not both. (6) Explain the dimension relationships on the unique cul -de -sac building line. (7) Engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) At the meeting, the Engineering Division reported that it had changed its position relative to access onto Napa Valley. Mike Batie reported that due to site distance problems at the current Rainwood intersection that a safer access could be had onto Napa Valley. A brief discussion was held concerning whether sidewalks should be assessed on Rainwood on this plat rather than the subdivision along the north side. It was determined that sidewalks along Rainwood were not an issue for this plat. The engineer and owner agreed to resubmit a revised plat before the meeting on the 11th with an attempt to resolve design of the street relative to a cul -de -sac on the east end and resolution of acquisition of the easternmost part of this proposal. The owner indicated if he cannot acquire the eastern parcel of this plat proposal, he will build a hammerhead rather than a cul -de -sac at the east end of the street. The reduction of the street to a hammerhead and a shortened length will eliminate the requirement for internal sidewalks. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff offered its recommendation of approval and added comments on design and the deletion of the eastern 10 lots from the plat now owned by the applicant. Mr. Norman Holcomb and Sam Davis, the project engineer, were present representing this plat. Mr. Holcomb addressed the staff comments and agreed to omit the unowned parcel after being directed by the chairman, Mr. Rector. A lengthy discussion followed wherein design details were worked out on the street termination, rear drive access, and Rainwood driveway entries. The reduction of the plat area and shortening of the street eliminated the requirement for sidewalks. The street standard for the subdivision is reduced by its length to a minor street thereby permitting a 45 -foot right-of-way and a 24 -foot pavement. At the conclusion of this lengthy discussion, a motion was made to approve the plat either as a cul -de -sac or loop street out to Rainwood on the north with a maximum of 18 lots. The drainage along the east line of the plat is to be open swale with Public Works Department approval of the drainage design. The private drive along the south lot lines are to provide a stub-out to Carrollton Circle. This rear drive is not to connect with Napa Valley. However, it may be extended to the east line of Lot No. 19. The driveway access points off Rainwood Drive to serve the lots are to be common access at every other property line. Internal turnaround provisions are to be made on the lots so as to permit cars to enter Rainwood head-in. Included in the motion are comments of the staff relative to design. These are items 2 and 3 dealing with boundary streets. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - File No. 641 -D NAME: Markham Commercial Subdivision Phase II LOCATION: Markham Park Drive at Bowman Road - NE Corner DEVELOPER: Markham Real Properties Limited Partnership 212 Center St., Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-2231 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, and Associates 201 South Izard - P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-5331 AREA: 5.72 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal This developer proposes to restructure the lots in this corner of a large commercial plat now partially developed. The phasing plan is one lot final plats. Tract A will be provided with a stubout to Bowman Road to provide access. Also, the Lots 11A and 12 will have building lines located to control visual aspects with respect to buildings on Tract A. Along the south boundary of Tract A, an internal access drive will tie these proposed lots to existing lots fronting on Markham Street as well as a large parcel lying to the east outside this ownership. B. Engineering Comments (1) Access problems at points along Bowman with conflicts between existing approved curb cuts and the access stub to the larger parcel Tract A. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued (2) Access problems with the drive behind McDonald's associated with stacking and turning movement. (3) Access problems between McDonald's and Hot Shots as to the number and spacing. (4) See the Traffic Engineer on items 1, 2, and 3 above prior to the August 11, 1987, meeting so as to provide resolution of these issues. C . Utility Comments At this writing Arkla and AP &L respond easements are okay as submitted. D. Analysis The Planning staff feels that the plat needs more thought qiven to overall traffic circulation with more thought given to placement of drives, parking, and buildings on Tract A. The Wisenhunt Tract to the east is especially important to circulation given the relationship of the private roadway extending to the east. The Planning staff feels that this area is becoming impacted by each developer dealing with a lot as a separate entity. A commercial subdivision such as this deserves a better future than that offered by unplanned access. The parking and circulation if developed individually and without thought to the general area over a number of years will jeoparidize the desirability of these business locations. E. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends aproval subject to: (1) Engineering comments. (2) Minor plat omissions. (3) A broader view of the access issue. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) Mike Batie of the Public Works Department discussed the driveway and access issues developed by Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineering Office. The concerns primarily centered on the potential for multiple points of entry in a short distance with overlapping turning movement. Don Chambers representing the plat responded to these comments by stating that a site plan will be forthcoming which will clarify some of these issues and perhaps eliminate some of the driveways which cause concern. There was additional discussion of the access drive behind MacDonald's. Mr. Chambers said this will be worked out on the site and that they will work further with the Engineering Department. Little Rock Water Works says in its report that an on-site fire protection system may be required. Wastewater Utility has no request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral items. A motion was made to defer the application until the September 22 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 636 -C NAME: Kanis Commercial Park Revision LOCATION: Kanis and Barrow Road DEVELOPER: Baptist Medical System 9601 Interstate 630 Little Rock, AR 72205 227 -1982 ENGINEER: Michael Watson - Mehlburger Firm P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 375 -5331 AREA: 2.1 acres ± NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 2,000 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial Lots PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: (1) Platting the buildable area of the lots to allow a common wall at a property line. (2) Deletion of Lot No. 13 as a lot number to avoid renumbering all of Lots 17-24. (3) Phasing plan to allow one lot final plats. (4) Road dedication and construction on Clarendon Drive and construction when Lots 17-19 are final platted. A. Proposal To replat two parcels in such a fashion that the existing building and an addition will share a common wall at a property line. Certain design features such as parking and drives will be shared. The action proposed apparently stems from a mortgage requirement and a desire to have one building expanded rather than two separate structures. The proposal includes four requests for ordinance variance. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued B. Engineering Comments (1) Excavation ordinance requirements be met. (2) Stormwater detention. (3) Right-of-way and improvements on Manor Drive off, Barrow to west line of Lot 15 including sidewalk. C. Utility Comment Utility responses at this point from Southwestern Bell and Arkla indicate easements approved as submitted. D. Analysis The Planning staff feels that the plat issue at hand is not a significant issue, but feels that given the revisisons to this plat already in the west portion that we must move carefully. We feel that with one lot final plats we can create a bookkeeping problem for all persons involved if we continually amend this preliminary and allow multiple final plats to go to record. Should this occur, it will cause confusion and disorder with respect to street improvements and other aspects of the development. The common wall platting matter is not a problem of the owners unless and except the Bill of Assurance fails to properly address the subject. In these kinds of plats, the Bill of Assurance and the plat are very important in defining such elements as common parking and common access. E. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends approval subject to: (1) Engineering comments. (2) Modifying the phasing plan to plat lots in pairs where a right-of-way lies between. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) In a general discussion of the plat format and the final plat phasing procedures, it was determined that the building line on these two lots will be reflected as the outline of the existing structure with the proposed addition. Conventional building lines will not be indicated. A discussion of street improvements along the south side of Lot 15 resulted in a suggestion that street improvements from Barrow Road westward be required with the final platting of either Lot 17, 18, 19, or 20, and that street improvements be extended to the west line of that lot as filed. There were no other issues attendant to this request. The Wastewater Utility requested that existing sewer line easements be reflected on the plat. The Water Works indicated that a main extension will be required plus on -site fire protection system may be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 286 NAME: Woodlake Addition LOCATION: SE of Leawood Mountain Addition along the west shore of Foreman Lake DEVELOPER: Norman Holcomb, Agent 5518 "A" Street Little Rock, AR 664 -1582 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 374 -1666 AREA: 4.25 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: 540 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: (1) Grades at end of the cul-de-sac. (2) Length of the cul-de-sac 1,070 feet (750 feet max). (3) Sidewalks (homes on one side only, very steep). A. Proposal To construct a 12 lot subdivision on steep slopes adjacent to a lake and other ownership. The lots involved propose to take access from a private easement lying on an adjacent ownership. B. Engineering Comments (1) Right-of-way dedication and street improvements. (2) Excavation Ordinance compliance prior to beginning grading or cutting of timber. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued C. Utility Comments At this time Southwestern Bell notes a need for additional easements. D. Enqineerinq Comments There is no dedicated access to this site and the easement shown does not reflect the public record granting the easement if such exists. Given the contours on this site, the engineer of record should provide a hillside analysis to justify lot sizes and the street location. The basic plan layout appears to be appropriate to the site unless some engineering factor in the analysis will not support the design. The Planning staff's primary concern in dealing with this subdivision is one of assuring that the acreage property lying between this subdivision and its neighbors on the north provides the conventional kinds of extension of utility and access required for lot sales. In the absence of resolution of the access roadway, this plat we feel should not be approved in any form. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral of the plat until such time as it can be shown that the public street proposed ties to another public street through proper title instrument or that this easement is legitimate and that this owner and developer will build a proper roadway over the easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) Mr. Joe White of White - Daters Engineers was present as was Mr. Norman Holcomb, the developer. A discussion was held concerning the access road to serve this plat. Mr. White and Mr. Holcomb assured the Committee and staff that there is an easement of record on the access road and will provide a copy of that instrument for the file. Mr. Holcomb indicated that three owners along the lake had established this easement a number of years ago and that the easement August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No . 6 - Continued runs with the land and conveys to this development. Mr. Holcomb further stated that he was attempting to buy the parcel between his subdivision and the existing dedicated right-of-way. He indicated that he hopes to work out the purchase of this by August 11 and resolve the question of construction of the street. Joe White was requested to review the hillside regulations relative to the steep slopes on this property. Mr . White indicated that he felt that the waivers requested in this proposal were supported by the grades on this site . A closing comment by Mr. White was that the engineer of record on this plat will be changed, and it should now be reflected as Samuel Davis. The Little Rock Water Works reported that a main extension plus on-site fire protection will be required . The Wastewater Utility indicated they had no requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ( 8-11-87 ) The staff presented its recommendation of approval with conditions on hillside regulations and access street improvements . The plat was represented by Mr. Joe White and Mr . Norman Holcomb. Mr . White offered comments concerning the points made in the staff write-up. The Planning staff reported that the street tie to Foreman Drive has been cleared as to legal access by a communication from an abstract company. The easement was established to run with the land and the title of the various lots . The easement is 45 feet in width. Mr. White then stated that the developer will build a 21-foot asphalt street over a proper base within this easement but provide no curb and gutter. The drainage proposed within the easement and the subdivision may be open ditches . Mr . White also stated that his analysis indicated that there is not a problem with respect to the lot sizes. A general discussion followed wherein it was determined that a review of the drainage and hillside regulations should be accomplished by the staff . A motion was then made to approve the plat and waivers subject to Public Works approval of the drainage plan and determining the requirements both within the plat and the access drive. Further , the staff is to verify the hillside regulation application to this plat and the access road is to be August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued constructed to a minimum of 21-foot pavement over a proper base. The design is to meet Public Works approval. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 4451 -A NAME: Eagle Point - Planned Residential District LOCATION: NW Corner of Napa Valley Drive at Ridge Haven Road DEVELOPER: B.G. Coney 10500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 224 -0362 ENGINEER: White - Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 374 -1666 AREA: 8.68 acres NO. OF LOTS: 40 FT. NEW STREET: 1,560 ZONING: "MF-6" and "OS" Open Space PROPOSED USE: Single Family UNITS PER ACRE: 4.6 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Proposal To construct a small lot subdivision with lots as small as 6000 square feet on a tract with definite design and use limitations. The 40 lots would be accessed from Ridgehaven Road at two points through what is shown on the zoning map as a 50 foot permanent "OS" buffer zone. The development density proposed is 4.6 units per acre utilizing all of the 8.68 acres within the site. The houses would be of two typicals, one scaled for a 40 foot plan, the other for a 50 foot. The minimum floor area will be 1800 square feet. The streets are to be public with a high level of landscaping. B. Engineering Comments (1) Plans should be engineer stamped. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued (2) Stormwater detention amounts and location. (3) Sidewalks on Ridgehaven and handicap ramps. (4) Excavation permit prior to grading or tree cutting. (5) Follow -up on discussion to widen Ridgehaven to three lanes at Napa Valley as previously proposed. C. Utility Comment Approval as submitted. Southwestern Bell is the only reporting utility. D. Analysis This plat and plan presents two issues which may be solveable at the coming meeting on August 11. These are (1) to reconcile the "OS" and 50 foot buffer strip with a single family plat, and (2) access to Ridgehven Road that the Traffic Engineer wants to review as a better access; he recommends possibly at the northeast corner of the property onto Napa Valley Road. It has been suggested by at least two adjoining owners that the plan violates what was assured to the neighborhood at the time of rezoning that the density access and screening would not change. The proposed density of 4.6 units per gross acre is less than the "MF-6" Multifamily in place; however, it does encroach more than such an "MF" project. This being a Planned Unit Development, it would be appropriate to specify the setbacks on side and rear of each lot especially since the lots vary in width. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral in order to provide sufficient time to research and develop the buffer and access issue. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) Mr. Joe White was present representing the developer. Mr. White offered brief comments on the proposal and addressed the issue of the adjacent property owner. He indicated that the developer will extend the current brick wall along Napa Valley along the entire frontage to Ridge Haven. Further, that he would look at the Napa Valley access as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. This would be a one point access. However, there may be site distance problems that will require further analysis. Mike Batie of the Engineering Department raises issues of the Ridgehaven improvements as proposed on the occasion of the approval of Mr. Melvin Bell's preliminary plat at the west end of Ridgehaven. Mr. White indicated that an improvement district was selling bonds and was underway today establishing the right -of -way and improvements on Ridgehaven as originally agreed. Mr. White further indicated that there would be no rear driveways on these lots as provided in the plat on the north. These driveways had caused concern for adjacent owners; therefore, front lot access from the internal street would be the method used. Mr. White also reported that he was entered into discussions with Laura Gold, the resident immediately to the west. The discussion centered upon a 50 -foot buffer along that 600 -foot property line with 25 feet of undisturbed land on either side. Mr. White indicated if he could not work out the details of this plat prior to the meeting on the 11th, he will make a request for deferral. The staff agreed with Mr. White that in this proposal the side yard requirements would be per Zoning Ordinance, and the only established platted building line would be the front yard on each lot. The Little Rock Water Works then reported that a main extension plus on -site fire protection would be required plus an acreage and front change may apply. The Wastewater Utility reported that a main extension will be required. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff presented its recommendation of approval with conditions on access and buffering. There were several objectors present and one letter presented from Mrs. Laura Gold. Mr. Joe White was present as agent for the owner. He made comments on the history of this site and the adjacent small lot developments to the north. He reported that he had met with Henk Koornstra on -site and discussed access to Ridge Haven Road. He and Henk commented that the access shown on the revised plan at one point could help circulation within the plat. Mr. White further commented on discussions with Mrs. Gold, the adjacent property owner on the west, about the buffers. Mr. White stated that he is offering a 40-foot buffer undisturbed as a change from the 25 feet now shown on the plan. He further stated that the rearing upon the buffer will require a waiver of rear yard setback to accommodate the buffer. This waiver will also allow the lots to be buildable. He answered a comment of the Commission by saying that he could pull the stub streets back from the north property line approximately 15 feet or more if possible. Mr. Chris Barrier, an attorney for Mrs. Gold, then presented objections to the application. Mr. Barrier stated that "MF-6" zoning and density was a better development. He said that a less dramatic stepdown in use is needed. The perimeter treatment is very important. He also requested a deferral in order to get together on a consensus on design and density. The objectors present included two additional persons who addressed the Commission. The first of which was Dr. Robert Walls, a neighbor on the west of Dr. Gold. Dr. Walls addressed the plat by commenting on the meetings of neighbors and their concerns about this project. He stated that they were not opposed to the project but would like to have more time to work out the issues. He felt the density was too high for the area and would like a deferral. Dr. Cheers offered comments on traffic and the density issue. He felt that it would help if Napa Valley Road were the only access. He further stated that a wall should be constructed on both the south property line adjacent to Ridge Haven and the west property line along Dr. Gold's property. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued Mr. White then answered questions on deferral and access. He also commented on the 40 -foot buffer and the proposed six -foot wall along Napa Valley now in the plan. He said he could omit the Ridge Haven access but that Henk Koornstra wanted to retain it for circulation. He said that he preferred a wood fence along the south frontage over brick construction because of the cost. He added that maybe a wall could be placed along the south boundary of Lot 1 adjacent to Mrs. Gold's property along Ridge Haven. Mrs. Johnson, a neighbor, then added comments on traffic and a potential conflict with the Golds' gate at the property corner. A general discussion then followed. At the end of this lengthy discussion a motion was made to approve the amended application subject to: 1. Pull the stub streets back from the property lines. 2. Increase the buffer to 40 feet undisturbed with a property owners association to provide ownership and assurance of protection. 3. Rear yard waived on the west tier of lots to allow the houses zero foot setback against the 40-foot buffer. 4. A six-foot brick wall the full length of Ridge Haven except within the blind corner area at Napa Valley. 5. Narrow the interior corner lots to adjust for the 40 -foot buffer. 6. Sidewalks on both street frontages. 7. No access onto Ridgehaven Road. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (David Jones), and 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 4877 NAME: Heritage Park - Long -Form P.I.D. LOCATION: On the west side of Allied Way off West 65th Street in the 6900 block DEVELOPER: I -30 Industrial Park Dev. P.O. Box 470 No. Little Rock, AR 72115 374-0470 ENGINEER: Eddie Branton, Architect 7820 West 5th St. #405 Little Rock, AR 72209 221-3259 AREA: 7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 1,000 ZONING: "I-2" PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use, Commerical, and Light Industrial PLANNING DISTRICT: 13 CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None: However, the site is in a Priority Two Open Space on the Parks Plan, and the Planning Commission can release this plan site without Board review upon recommendation of staff and the Parks Director. The Parks Director, Mr. Breckling, indicates that inasmuch as this is a Priority Two Open Space and not an actual park site, he supports its removal subject to our obtaining the floodway deed to protect the green finger concept. A. Proposal To develop a mom and pop commercial and light industrial park. The buildings are to vary from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet for small wholesalers and light industrial users such as cabinet shops and subcontractors. All buildings are to be standard metal structures. All lots are to be landscaped per City August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued Ordinance or higher possibly with berms throughout with shrubs. The mixed use concept is the reason for the PUD filing. B. Engineering Comments (1) Contact City Engineer for floodplain information and floor elevation. (2) Contact Traffic Engineer for design of street and drives. The interior street shall be public with 36 feet of paving and a 60 foot right-of-way. (3) Allied Way should be constructed to industrial standards with paved shoulders. (4) Excavation permit required prior to grading or tree removal. C. Utility Comment Bell Telephone reports the plat is okay as submitted. D. Analysis This Planned Unit Development application contains deficiencies that require withdrawal and refiling . These deficiencies are but not limited to: (1) No plat filed for subdivision type issue. (2) Drainage and floodway information totally absent. (3) No survey attached. (4) No Bill of Assurance. (5) No structural information on buildings proposed. (6) No elevations or sections through site. (7) Apparently no prefiling conference to direct this applicant. E. Staff Recommendation Deferral until such time as a resubmittal can cure the deficiencies. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) The staff and applicant discussed the content of the staff recommendation with the Committee. It was agreed that the applicant will work with the staff during the course of the next eight or ten days but not later than Friday, the 31st to remedy the issues outlined. The staff reported hhat if it can receive the appropriate information by that time that the case will be continued, and we would have no cause to request deferral. Additional staff report will follow this agenda. The Little Rock Water Works indicated that a main extension will be required for this project plus an on-site fire protection system. They also indicated that private agreements on fire hydrants maintenance will be required if the Commission approves a private internal street. The Sewer Department reported that a main extension will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for deferral items. A motion was made to defer the application until the September 22 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 4066 -B NAME: M. Mitchell - Short Form Planned Commercial District LOCATION: SE corner of West Markham Street at Alamo Street (11,601 West Markham St.) DEVELOPER: Maury Mitchell 212 Center St. #400 Little Rock, AR 374 -2231 ENGINEER: Ross McCain 300 Spring Bldg., Suite 1015 Little Rock, AR AREA: .473 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-1" PROPOSED USE: PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Proposal Retail Sales per "C-1" Listing /Laundry and Dry Cleaning The existing building constructed in "C-1" Commercial will be permitted a dry cleaning establishment that is now prohibited in the "C-1." This use is the only purpose for filing a PUD. B. Engineering Comments There are traffic circulation problems especially with respect to drive through on the rear of this structure. The Traffic Engineer and Planning staff agree that a drive through dropoff is inappropriate given the design. C. Utility Comment Arkla, AP &L, and Bell Telephone report the issue okay for easements as submitted. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued D. Analysis This is a very simple issue requiring little comment except to say that the use proposed apparently will not offend the neighbors. It is our understanding that the chemicals used in dry cleaning will not be offensive. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the Planned Commercial District as requested except for the possiblity of a drive through. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) A brief discussion of this proposal centered upon whether or not it was appropriate to introduce a drive-thru window for customers on the rear of this building. The Traffic Engineer's Office indicated that it opposed such a proposal with the design constraints now in place. Mr. Koornstra of the Traffic Engineering Office will look at the modifications which may be needed if the Planning Commission determines a drive -thru is appropriate. There were no other issues of consequence attached to this proposal. The Water Works indicated they had no comment on the application. Wastewater indicated they did not have comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff offered its recommendation of approval subject to Fire Department requirements on exterior doors and stair repair. The applicant, Mr. Gibson, was present. Mr. Gibson offered brief comments on his proposal and answered questions of the Commission. He said he could respond to the Fire Department once he knew the exact requirements. Mr. Hargraves, a neighbor on the south, had questions about the type of rental occupancy and financing as to whether they would be subsidized. Mr. Gibson's reply was that he was looking to a higher type market to maintain what he had. A general discussion then followed. A motion was then made to approve the Planned Residential District as filed with a condition that the owner comply with Fire Department comments. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - File No. Z -4861 NAME: Bon -Aire Apts. Planned Residential District LOCATION: 3405 -9 West Markham Street DEVELOPER: Lee Gibson 6829 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72207 664 -5500 ENGINEER: Brooks and Curry P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR 72115 372 -2131 AREA: 12,878 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Planned Residential District from Current "R-4" District PROPOSED USE: Multifamily PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None except that parking lot size and landscaping will be deficient. A. Proposal To make a nonconforming apartment house conforming. The current ten units are zoned "R-3" Single Family. No additions are requested at this time. The 13 parking spaces although deficient in design have served for a considerable period. The project dates from 1927 and is a mix of two and three story with one bedroom apartments throughout. B. Enqineerinq Comments Contact Traffic Engineer to discuss the parking drives and alleyway for possible improvement. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued C. Utility Comments Arkla and AP &L report easements okay as filed. D. Analysis The staff view of this project is that it has existed for a long period on an arterial street and if limited by this PUD application to ten units then no harm will attend the zoning change. There is little or nothing that can be done with the parking, however, the Traffic Engineer should review the layout with the applicant. This location is all that supports the application aside from the age of the nonconformity. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to ordinance providing for a single multifamily use with ten maximum apartments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: There was a brief discussion of the proposal. The owner was in attendance. He indicated that he had discussed with Henk Koornstra of the Traffic Engineer's Office the existing design problems in the parking area indicating there was little action that could be taken to resolve the current problem. The owner indicated that financing is the primary issue for the filing of this PUD request. There would be no changes in the building except as necessary to maintain or remodel the existing facilities. There were no other issues attendant to this request. The Little Rock Water Works indicated no comment. The Wastewater Utility indicated no comment. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - File No. Z -4860 NAME: Circlewood Apts. - Planned Residential District LOCATION: 2517 Grove Circle DEVELOPER: Lee Gibson 6829 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72207 664 -5500 ENGINEER: Don Brooks P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR 72115 372 -2131 AREA: 8,305 sq. ft. NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Planned Residential District from "R-4" PROPOSED USE: Multifamily PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None except that parking lot size and landscaped area may be deficient. A. Proposal To make a nonconforming apartment house conforming. The current nine units are zoned "R-3" Single Family. No additions are requested at this time. The parking is three stalls in the rear and on- street. The project consists of one bedroom units in a two story building. The project dates from 1926. B. Engineering Comments Improvement of the parking in the alley and the addition of two parking spaces should be pursued. C. Utility Comments Arkla and AP &L report plan okay as submitted. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued D. Analysis The staff's view of this project is that it has existed for many years within a nice single family environment. There are perhaps a couple of duplexes nearby. The isolation of this project from multifamily zoned areas and arterial streets presents the dilemma. We feel that introduction of "MF" zoning, even though in the form of a PRD, is a spot zone. The size of nearby homes indicates that this area might be significantly impacted if conversion of some of these homes might be the result of introduction of this zoning activity. E. Staff Recommendation Denial of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) There was a general discussion of the proposal. This action was filed for the same basic reasons as Item 10 on this agenda that being to obtain financing. Parking was discussed as a particular concern for this site inasmuch as there are currently three proper spaces designed and placed on the lot with potential for perhaps three additional. The owner said that he could improve the parking, but it would probably not be used by the tenants due to the stairs and access from that side of the building. Most people park on the street. This issue was deemed to be reduced to a land use question for the full Commission's discussion. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) The staff presented its recommendation of denial based upon the neighborhood plan, spot zoning expansion, and possible encouragement of conversion of present large homes in the area, plus the site is not on a collector or arterial street. Mr. Gibson, the applicant was present. There were four letters of objection and one petition of objection with ten signatures submitted. Mr. Gibson presented his case. He responded to questions of the Commission concerning traffic, parking, and the reasons for the application. A lengthy general discussion was held with comments on increasing the parking on -site, limiting the building to individually rented units with no group occupancies such as halfway houses. Compliance with the Fire Department's request on exterior doors was also discussed. Mr. Gibson offered for the record that he would agree to comply with these requirements. Commissioner Riddick then offered for the record that the Commission should make use of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance in these kinds of cases and especially when existing buildings are involved that are already developed as apartments. He felt that conversions of existing buildings should be discouraged. The Commission accepted this thought, and discussion revealed that the Commission would not be supportive of additional multifamily zoning activities in this area. In light of the applicant's willingness to commit to additional restriction and the comments offered by the Commission, the staff changes its position to approval of the "PRD." A motion was then made to approve this application with the following conditions: 1. Provide additional parking on -site to the extent possible. This includes possible removal of any additional accessory structure in the rear yard and provision of at least six stalls. 2. Comply with the Fire Department's request concerning exterior doors and access. 3. Occupancy restrictions as agreed to above. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - File No. 650 -D NAME: Hunters Cove - Revised Building Line LOCATION: West End of Hunters Glen Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: AREA: 10 acres ± NO. OF LOTS: 41 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Planned Residential District PROPOSED USE: Remain single family with reduced front setback to accommodate open porches A. Proposal To replat the current front building line relationship to allow a separate building line for covered open porches. The current building setback line for the principle structure would remain the same. B. Analysis The proposal offers no significant use, structural, or setback issues. The open porch or deck intrusion will not effect an increase in building bulk. The effective setback will remain 20 feet. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request with the Bill of Assurance and the subdivision plat including notations that these porches may not be enclosed or have screens or ornamental structures /additions such as lattice work. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) The engineer for this proposal was not present. There was no discussion of the matter. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Z- 4027 -A NAME: Tanglewood Montessori Conditional Use Permit (Z- 4027 -A) LOCATION: The south side of Ohio Street at its eastern terminous (7217 Ohio Street) OWNER /APPLICANT: Gerda Ginzel /Darcia M. Norwood PROPOSAL: To construct a 203 square feet addition (expansion of a classroom and an addition of a bathroom) to an existing 2,002 square feet day-care and elementary school (hours of operation 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday /capacity 54 students) on land that is zoned "R-5." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a substandardly constructed residential street (Ohio Street). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This site is abutted by single family to the north, vacant land and single family to the South, duplex to the west, and vacant land and multifamily to the east. This proposal will not increase the .school capacity but will provide much needed off - street parking. The staff feels that even though the school is not sited in an ideal location, the increased off-street parking will improve the situation. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The site contains one paved dropoff drive and the applicant is proposing ten paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The site plan contains a proposed landscape plan. 5. Analysis This property has been denied a Conditional Use Permit in the past primarily due to the fact that no off-street parking was provided. The applicant has proposed ten paved parking spaces while not proposing an increase in the existing school capacity. The staff feels that the net effect of the proposal will be positive. 6. City Engineer Comments Redesign the entry drive (meet with the Traffic Engineer). 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant meets with the City Traffic Engineer to redesign the entry drive and submit said revised site plan to staff. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The Water Works stated that an easement was needed 7.5 feet either side of an existing line in Ohio Street. The applicant agreed to work out the issue with the Water Works. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that they had received two letters (Mr. Thurman Harris and Dale and Thelma Allen) which stated they would not oppose the proposal only if they could be guaranteed that the current enrollment capacity and associated traffic would not increase. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that met staff requirements and recommended that the school capacity be limited to the current enrollment capacity of 54 students. The applicant agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 2 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Z-4875 NAME: Thomas Memorial Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z -4875) LOCATION: The northwest corner of Brown and 14th Streets (1316 Brown Street) OWNER /APPLICANT: Board of Trustees Thomas Memorial Baptist Church /John B. Sewall PROPOSAL: To expand an existing church facility in two phases which are: (1) to construct a 20 feet two story addition (west), add a second floor on the west 42 feet (35 feet in height) of the existing building plus a one level corridor on both sides of the building, and add a 17 space off -site parking lot; and in Phase II to add a second floor to the remaining area (auditorium) increasing the capacity from 90 to 150 persons (the church hopes to purchase Lot 6 and construct an additional 16 parking spaces) on land that zoned "R-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to two residential streets (14th Street and Brown Street). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This property lies within the Stephens School Neighborhood Plan. The land use plan calls for single family in the entire area. The existing facility is compatible with the surrounding area even though it does not have any off - street parking. The proposed second story addition (35 feet) would have a tendency August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued to overshadow adjacent single family uses especially considering that two setback variances would be required (14th Street and on the alley). The staff feels that this proposal would constitute an overbuilding of the site and would be incompatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The existing site has no parking. The proposal contains one access (dropoff) off Brown Street and a paved 17 space parking lot. The applicant is also proposing a future 16 space parking lot (once acquired) at the time of Phase II construction. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has proposed landscaping on the parking areas. 5. Analysis The staff does not feel that this proposal would be compatible with the surrounding area (see note number 2). The staff feels that the proposed addition (35 feet in height) would infringe on the single family located adjacent to the north and the east. The overbuilding would result in two setback variances (25 feet rear /alley and 25 feet corner lot /14th Street). Finally, the staff cannot recommend approval of a parking lot on land that is not owned by the applicant. 6. City Engineer Comments Pave the alley to a width of 20 feet (from 14th Street to the proposed parking lot) and use for two-way traffic. 7. Staff Recommendation Denial of the proposed church expansion. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The agent for the applicant was present and stated that the height of the proposed second story would probably be closer to 22 feet. The City Engineer also stated that half of the proposed drop-off /drive would be located in the right-of-way and that a franchise from the Board of Directors would be required. A lengthy discussion ensued about the amount of the proposed construction upon the site. The Committee advised the applicant to consider scaling down the proposal. The Water Works stated that a water main extension for fire protection would be required because the nearest fire hydrant is 600 feet away. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There was one objector present. The staff stated that they had received a letter requesting deferral until the September 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 1 absent, and 1 open position to defer this item until the September 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Z-4876 NAME: Charity Community Church Conditional Use Permit (Z-4876) LOCATION: The east side of Geyer Springs Road approximately 1/4 of a mile south of Mabelvale Cutoff (11111 Geyer Springs Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Charity Community Church /Roy Dale Clark PROPOSAL: To expand an existing church facility in phases that would include a sanctuary (1,200 capacity), a day-care and elementary school (grades K-8), a 1,200 square feet bookstore, a playground, six 2,000 square feet single family dwelling units (temporary housing three months to nine months as well as foster families), a 30,000 square feet gymnasium, and a storage facility and maintenance shop on 12.72 acres of land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a principle arterial (Geyer Springs Road). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This property is surrounded by vacant land and borders on a principle arterial. A church use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains two access drives and 194 parking spaces. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued 4. Screeninq and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted or is shown on the proposed site plan. 5. Analysis The staff is supportive of a church use at this site. The staff does, however, have a number of reservations about the proposed uses and the site plan. The applicant needs to meet with the staff and then submit a revised site plan that contains: a phasing legend; all the necessary dimensions; landscape areas; the building dimensions for the single family homes rather than sites; phasing for parking, and more parking areas to alleviate the deficiency in the proposed parking (240 spaces required). The staff also has some concerns about uses that possibly do not fall within the perimeters of the Conditional Use Permit on land that is zoned "R-2." The uses in question are: the maintenance shop, the bookstore, and possibly the housing. 6. City Engineer Comments (1) Dedicate the right-of-way necessary for arterial standards on Geyer Springs Road; and (2) construct Geyer Springs Road to arterial standards for the length of the church property frontage during Phase II construction. 7. Staff Recommendation The staff supports a church use at this site but reserves its recommendation until such time as the land uses in question and site plan issues are resolved. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and was assisted by Bob Richardson. The applicant stated that the housing would be six single family structures, and that the maintenance /storage facility was illustrated as a buildable area and would be used for an outreach program of storage, food, and clothing, and that the maintenance shop would be for lawn mowers, tractors, etc., for the church use only. The bookstore would sell books for the school, parishioners, and to the public. The Committee felt that the bookstore use should be more specifically defined and reviewed by the Commission. The staff stated that the dedication of the right -of -way on Geyer Springs Road would be required now with the actual construction tied to Phase II of the project. The applicant agreed to comply with the dedication request as well as meet with the staff and revise the site plan accordingly. The Water Works stated that on-site fire protection may be required and that the nearest water main is approximately 2,000 feet from the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that deleted the proposed bookstore and met all previous staff and Commission requirements with the exception of parking. The Phase 1 construction would be two temporary classroom buildings and would contain 30 parking spaces instead of the required 65. The staff further stated that the additional 35 spaces plus the construction of Geyer Springs Road would occur during Phase II. The staff then recommended approval of the site plan as revised and agreed to by the applicant. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as recommended by the staff and agreed to by the applicant. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Z-4878 NAME: New Hope Church of the Nazarene Conditional Use Permit (Z-4878) LOCATION: 150 feet west of the southwest corner of Hillsboro and Chicot Roads (7709 Hillsboro Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Kimberly Sue Venable and Elmer Yarberry/ Loretta Dixon PROPOSAL: To construct a 6,000 square feet church sanctuary (200 capacity), a recreational area, and 24 parking spaces on land that is zoned "R-2." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (Hillsboro). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This property is abutted by vacant land to the north, vacant and single family to the south, single family to the east, and single family to the west. A church use limited to the proposed scale of this project, is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposal contains one access drive on Hillsboro and 24 parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, have a number of reservations with regard to the site plan. The site plan should be revisd to include: 40 paved parking spaces; notations stating that the sanctuary will be one story in height and limiting access to Hillsboro road; landscape areas; and the proposed recreation area. Staff also feels that the Commission should consider collector street standards for Hillsboro Road. The Master Street plan has been amended to delete what was the old alignment of the proposed South Loop. The staff feels that a collector is warranted to move traffic east and west between Heinke and Chicot Roads. 6. City Engineer Comments (1) Meet with City Traffic Engineer to revise parking and access areas; and (2) dedicate /construct Hillsboro Road to City standards by filing a one lot final plat. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval providing: (1) The applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan that includes the revisions as stated in the analysis section; (2) resolution of the street standards by the Commission; and (3) the applicant agrees to comply with City Engineer Comments numbered 1 and 2. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The Water Works stated that on-site fire protection would be required and that a main extension would also be required. The item was not discussed further. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that the applicant had failed to meet numerous requirements and then recommended withdrawal of the item without prejudice. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 1 open position to withdraw the item without prejudice. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Z -4880 NAME: Lighthouse Center Church Conditional Use Permit (Z -4880) LOCATION: The east side of south Maple approximately 200 feet south of 18th Street (1813 South Maple) OWNER /APPLICANT: Imran Bohra /Clarence Harville PROPOSAL: To convert a condemned single family structure (1,020 square feet) to a church (30 capacity) on land that is zoned "R-3. " ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (Maple Street). 2. Compatibility With Neighborhood This property lies within the Stephens Neighborhood Plan. The plan shows this area as single family. This particular structure has been condemned and is abutted by a vacant lot with single family and Stephens School located to the north, single family to the south, single family to the east (separated by an alley), and single family located to the west (side yard relationship). A neighborhood church on a small scale, in addition to the upgrading of a condemned structure would be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant is proposing to construct six gravel parking spaces which will take access from an existing paved alley (east). August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant needs to be advised that the parking area will require landscaping and /or fencing. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the rehabilitation of a condemned structure would enhance this area. The staff also feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, feel that the proposed parking area should be paved in accordance with City standards. 6. Citv Engineer Comments None. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) pave the parking area; and (2) meet City Landscape Ordinance requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present as were three objectors. The staff stated that the applicant had agreed to meet all agreements and recommended approval of the application. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued Ms. Farmer, Ms. Paulett Bassett, and Ms. Future May Watts all spoke in opposition to the proposed church primarily due to what they felt would be an increase in noise and traffic in the neighborhood. The City Attorney stated that an affidavit should be on record with the Public Works Department regarding the condemned status of the property. The applicant stated that he thought that it had been taken care of. A lengthy discussion ensued over the proposed use of the property. The Commission then voted 4 ayes, 3 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position to approve the application as filed. The motion failed due to a lack of six votes affirming or denying the proposal. The item was then automatically deferred to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting (August 25, 1987). August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Other Matters NAME: Revocation Hearing for Edgerstoune Planned Residential District LOCATION: Northeast corner of North Martin Street and "I" Street APPLICANT: David McCreery Flake and Company P.O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone No. 376-8005 STAFF REPORT: This issue is brought before the Commission as the result of a request by Mr. McCreery which was placed before the Planning Commission on June 30, 1987. The Commission in its discussion of the requested extension determined that such a extension was inappropriate and that the proper hearing should be scheduled for revocation. There were objectors in attendance at that meeting, however, they did not identify themselves for the record. The Commission determined that it would be appropriate to follow the revocation process as set forth in the Ordinance and as instructed by the City Attorney. Mr. McCreery was directed to respond as the staff instructed and appear at the appropriate time and place prepared to offer justification for continuance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff will not offer a recommendation at this time but will respond as required at the public hearing. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (7-23-87) The Committee did not discuss this matter inasmuch as it is an issue for resolution by the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-11-87) There was no one present to represent this Planned Unit Development revocation. The staff reported that a letter was received from Mr. David McCreery stating that he would not attend the meeting and was willing to allow the Planned Unit Development to expire. The Commission received the staff comment, discussed the procedure for revocation, and determined that this hearing required that they follow through on recommending the revocation action. A motion was made to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the Edgerstoune Planned Residential District approval be revoked and that Ordinance No. 15,008 be vacated, thus restoring the prior "R-5" zoning district to the land. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Walter Riddick), 1 open position. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Other Matters NAME: Secluded Hills Preliminary Plat Revised LOCATION: East of Taylor Loop Road off Shepherd Drive South of State Highway 10 REQUEST: To approve a revision in the approved preliminary plat so as to properly conform to changes in the Longlea Manor preliminary plat on the south. The changes consist of street alignment and lot line movement only. All other features such as stub streets to the east will not change. STAFF RECOMMENDATOIN: Approval of the plat revision as filed as being appropriate action to assure proper continuity of development. There are no issues attendant to the proposal. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee briefly discussed the revision in concert with the plat revision on Longlea Manor. It was the feeling of both staff and the Committee that this action should be added to the August 11 agenda and approved at the same occasion as Longlea Manor. August 11, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Other Matters PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 11, 1987) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief discussion, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval items. A motion was made for approval. The motion includes conditions or statements set forth in the staff report. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. DATE�-/� l'1J'7 ZONING MEMBER W.Riddick, III J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson W.Rector w.!<etcher O. J. Jones R.Collins F.Perkins P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S 1 0 N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS SUBDIVISION If tB 6 _iJ -b I � 3 c./ s (p ? r 9 v" v 0 V V J/ I,, V ---� V """ I,., V v' V V v V' I/ v t/ v--I,/ '-"' "" I/ J,/ V ✓V V v V V v' V I/"' � l/' V V I,/ V V v V V V V' V V v V {/ L/ V V V V V V V l/ v-'--' V" V V V V I/V ,_ """ i..-v L,, I, ,,,.. L,/' V"" V v V A .. If I v V y" ✓ v ""' V V V J/ A-If V v V J/ V V v V" � v' V V I,,,-"'1,/ I/' I,' . v v v v v I,,'I/ V V // V I,,,"" ,_,,..,, V I/' ✓ V ,/ ✓ V v' Y' ly V V 1/ V' � ✓A YE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN /1} /1 1r:2. l13 IC/ 1511,1 17 y" V' v /;,,,"' V' '-' '-"' � L,,r' y V V t--v L/ £, 1,/" V" V v y-V 0 (,,./ J/ � � J.--� z- v-.v--V t..,,," �v V 6 I,,," '--' � '-' (_,.,,,' ,_,,, t..-,1 L-- Tl It f+. V A--/} A J,,/' ,4 z.---1.,.,,-" J.,---" l---' '-' A z..,, A J,': � '-"" J,.,.,,-" � I,,-"' J--� t,,/ ,,_,.--V' J,,,' � � V: t,,,- DATE/½.11, 11✓1 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS ZONING SUBDIVISION MEMBER 1/f tr W.Riddick, III ,,� ✓ J.Schlereth V" v R.Massie I,/ v' B.Sipes V V J.Nicholson k I/ w.Rector � V W.!<etcher 111 IA O. J. Jones iA ✓ R.Collins ,4 v' F.Perkins t,.,,,' vv ✓AYE NAYE ABSENT ABSTAIN August 11, 1987 There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman