Loading...
pc_04 07 1987subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING AND MINUTE RECORD APRIL 7, 1987 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum of 11 was present. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were read and approved. III. Members Present: Bill Rector, Jr., Chairman Betty Sipes Walter Riddick, Jr. Jerilyn Nicholson John Schlereth Richard Massie Fred Perkins Dorothy Arnett David Jones William Ketcher Rose Collins IV. City Attorney Present: Steven Giles SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION AGENDA APRIL 7, 1987 Deferred Items: None. Preliminary Plats /Replats: 1. Jernigan Addition 2. Geyerwood Addition 3. Orbit Subdivision - Replat 4. West Markham Land Addition - Replat 5. Kings Pointe Addition 6. Castle Valley South Addition 7. Parkway II Commercial Subdivision - Repalt 8. Shady Grove Estates 9. Executive Office Park Planned Unit Development: 10. Berkley, Planned Residential District 11. Ivy, Planned Industrial District 12. Davidson Properties, Planned Residential District Conditional Use Permits: 13. Best Tire Company 14. Brookside Circle Day -Care Center April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 1 - File No. 752 NAME: Jernigans Addition LOCATION: Located on the east side of Broadview Drive at Broadview Terrace south off Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: Jane W. Swope Star Route 1, Box 122 Ferndale, AR 72208 Telephone: 821 -2500 ENGINEER: Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 Telephone: 851 -3366 AREA: 2.212 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: West Little Rock No. 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. To utilize existing physical improvements for access. A. Existing Conditions One large home on an estate size lot with double frontage. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 1 - Continued B. Development Proposal To replat the current two acres into three lots utilizing a private easement now in place which serves the lots adjacent on the south. This access is 8' to 12' variable width gravel surface within a 16' easement. This easement is totally upon the adjacent three owners. The easement would serve only Lot 3 of this proposal which cannot be reasonably accessed from Pine Manor Drive on the east. C. Engineering Comments The 16' access easement from Broadview Drive to Lot 3 might be discussed. Access easement of 20' might be needed instead of the 16'. D. Analysis Our view of this plat is that there is an alternate access mechanism to serve the one lot and avoid the legal access question. The configuration of the lots and their size will allow a 20' by 200' pipe stem to Lot 3 off Broadview Drive. This would require Lots 1 and 2 to be 30' less in dimension east to west. The stem could be on either side of Lot 2. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the replat subject to a redesign for pipe stem access and comments of the Engineering Division of Public Works. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 1 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Use of the abutting easement for access was discussed. Staff explained its recommendation against use of the easement, which was partly due to it currently being unimproved and constructed of gravel only. The applicant decided he would not use the easement for access and would remove it from the plan. He agreed to discuss improvements and right-of-way dedication with Engineering. Staff indicated a willingness to support no improvements on Pine Manor if adequate right-of-way is dedicated. Utilities - Water Works intends to run a water line down Pine Manor Drive within the next 14 months. Water service to Lot 3 would be off this main. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed, subject to: (1) removing the access easement from the plat; (2) providing right-of-way dedication on Pine Manor and curb /gutter on Broadview Drive; (3) improvement tro be tied to plat and Bill of Assurance so that construction is required on Lot 1 if issued a building permit. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 2 - File No. 680-A NAME: Geyerwood Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Geyer Springs Road at Santa Monica Drive DEVELOPER: Lloyd Stone #3 Lexington Drive Conway, AR 72032 Telephone: 327-4867 ENGINEER: Eddie Branton Architect, Inc. Wallace Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 372-4930 AREA: 3.348 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 14 FT. NEW STREET: 825 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 CENSUS TRACT: 41.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Lot depth to less than 100'. A. Existing Conditions A vacant irregular shaped lot which is too narrow north and south to permit lots on both sides of a central street and maintain minimum standards. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 2 - Continued B. Development Proposal To preliminary plat 14 lots of minimum width but less than the minimum depth along a 50' wide right -of -way with a 24' pavement. The subdivision is intended for small single family detached residences. C. Engineering Comments Previous comments apply. D. Analysis This tract was the subject of a Planned Unit Development application for small lots in 1986. The plat attached to that filing had many problems. There was much neighborhood opposition and the proposal failed at all review levels. The applicant has filed a single family plat at this time attempting to do small lot development. The staff review has determined 21 omissions from the filing of the plan and plat. The more serious being the lot depth which the Planning Commission cannot waive. Secondary to that, two of the lots within this design leave barely 18' of buildable depth. E. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends that the plat be withdrawn at the Committee level and that the owner be directed to look at a layout for a maximum of eight lots in a single row. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to withdraw the item and file a revised plan next month. No fee will be required. Utilities - Water main extension plus on -site fire protection required. The 4" sewer shown on -site must be replaced with a 6" line and all off -site sewer shall be a minimum of 8" in diameter. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 2 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 3 - File No. 721 -B NAME: Orbit Subdivision Revised Preliminary Plat LOCATION: East of North Chicot Road and Interstate 30 Frontage Road DEVELOPER: Hathaway Group Agent 1500 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 372-1700 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson and Associates Inc. 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-5331 AREA: 51.9 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-4" PROPOSED USE: Highway Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 20.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions A developing commercial corridor on the north side of Interstate 30, the land has been partially cleared and no grade or drainage issues exist. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 3 - Continued B. Development Proposal To create one commercial lot out of the current Tract C and to title this Lot G consisting of 168' of frontage and a variable depth up to 500'. This plat was approved initially as a mixed use preliminary. Several lots have been sold. A commercial use is being constructed at the corner of Chicot Road and an apartment complex was recently completed lying to the north. C. Engineering Comments Boundary street improvements are required on North Chicot Road and Mabelvale Pike. Stormwater detention required on -site also. D. Analysis The Planning staff view of this proposal is that it is entirely appropriate. The owner has committed to the extension of the 40' buffer across Tracts C and G in the fashion required for Tract F on the corner. We believe this will provide for a more livable environment for the apartment dwellers on the north lot being Tract E. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee. Staff explained that the previous agreement made regarding improvement should be reflected on this plat. Utilities - Additional sewer easement required along the west sides of Tracts A, D, and E around existing sewer main. On-site fire protection required. An acreage water charge of $150 per acre will apply. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A clarification was made regarding the required buffer across the lots. Staff explained that it would be as required by ordinance. A motion for approval, subject to engineering comments was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 4 - File No. 710-A NAME: West Markham Land Addition LOCATION: South side of West Markham Street in the frontage lying east of the Rock Creek bridge (11700 block West Markham) DEVELOPER: Brad Walker 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 664-4242 White - Daters and Associates 401 South Victory street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 374-1666 AREA: 5.68 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Retail Sales PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions This plat area was created by the recent improvement of the Rock Creek alignment and subsequent filling of land along the creek. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 4 - Continued B. Development Proposal This plat is a replat of action on October 1986, where five lots were preliminary platted. This action if approved will expand the total lots to eight and at the same time, maintain the minimum depth, width, and area. The plat was authorized five curb cuts previously, and that number will be maintained in this plan. The access will also be maintained on a shared basis. C. Engineering Comments The plat proposed shows five driveway locations as approximate locations. These locations should be shown on the plat as joint driveways between individual lots. D. Analysis This plat is in proper form except for minor details of the plat content such as adjacent owners. There are no issues of substance. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat as filed. F. Subdivision Committee Review The item was reviewed by the Committee. Staff explained that the previous approval limited curb cuts to a maximum of five. The applicant was asked to contact a neighboring property owner who expressed concern as to the use of the property. Utilities - Additional sewer easement required along the front property line. Minimum width shall be 16' centered around existing sewer main. Water main extension plus on -site fire protection required. Service off 20" main not allowed. Would need to extend 8" stub across Markham. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 4 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 5 - File No. 754 NAME: Kings Pointe Addition LOCATION: Lying on the east side of Kirby Road south of Markham Place Circle DEVELOPER: Marion K. Birmingham and Vernon K. Brown 13500 Rock Creek Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: 225-5946 ENGINEER: Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 Telephone: 851-3366 AREA: 2.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW STREET: 224 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions A heavily wooded site served by a two-lane, narrow, county standard roadway. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 5 - Continued B. Development Proposal To plat nine lots on 2.5 acres taking access by way of a short cul -de -sac off Kerby Road. The lots are to be utilized as detached single family residences. C. Engineering Comments (1) Existing downstream drainage does not exist through Parkway Place Subdivision. Therefore, the developer is required to provide some means to detain the water and spread the water instead of concentrating when it drains back to the northeast. (2) Boundary street improvements are required on Kirby Road. Due to the topography in the south end of Kirby Road (steep hill), the Engineering staff would like to discuss with the developer the possible reconstruction of the hill in lieu of other improvements on Kirby Road. Please the Engineering staff for further details. D. Analysis The plat as filed is in good shape except for three areas of concern: (1) sidewalks along Kerby Road, (2) 30' building line on Kerby Road, and (3) site distance on Kerby south of the entrance. E. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed with compliance requirement on sidewalks and building line. We defer to the City Engineer on the site distance question. F. Subdivision Committee Review Engineering explained that the hill to the south needed to be lowered since it created a very dangerous situation. The applicant's engineer had not yet informed his client of this requirement. He was asked to work with Engineering regarding the extent of his involvement in this matter. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 5 - Continued The Committee felt that no sidewalk improvements would be required due to the cost involved if the applicant participates in the reconstruction of the hill. Utilities - Water main extension plus on-site fire protection required. Acreage charge of $300 per acre may apply. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that Winrock Development Company was concerned that Kings Pointe Cove did not line up with Summit Ridge Drive, which is their plat to the west. Kings Pointe Cove is located 20' to 25' south of Summit Ridge. Both engineers were present and worked out an agreement regarding the off-set. Engineering recommended that the final plat be conditioned upon City participation in the improvement of the site distance on Kirby Road and the cutting down of the hill. The owner understood that without City approval and funding, his development costs would be an additional $10,000. A motion was made for approval, subject to working out an alignment of the intersection with Engineering. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 6 - File No. 751 NAME:Castle Valley South LOCATION: Along the south side of Castle Valley Drive west off Chicot Road DEVELOPER: Mrs. Mary F. Damour 1022 Hickory Hill Court Apartment A9 Clinton, IA 52732-3602 Telephone: ENGINEER: Marla Engineering Company, Inc. 5318 J.F.K. Blvd. North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 753-1987 AREA: 4.47 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 REQUESTS: Approved with 4 phases of development. VARIANCES REQUESTED: None, except that clarification of sidewalk location is requested (north or south side of this collector). A. Existing Conditions A single row of 100' parcels vacant and partially covered by brush and trees. A roadway serves this April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 6 - Continued site running west off Chicot Road and providing the primary residential and business access to the golf course. B. Development Proposal The owner is responding to a subdivision violation notice to her realtor. She desires to create 10 single family lots along the current street and provide improvements to collector standard. C. Engineering Comments Street improvements are required on Castle Valley Road. Contact Engineering Department for roadway requirements. Stormwater detention required on -site. Show on the drawing where the detention facilities will be located and also the calculations for these facilities. D. Analysis This plat is in good technical compliance with the ordinance. There are only two issues of substance. (1) The out parcels causing breaks in the plat boundary where illegal transfers have occurred but are in third party hands. owners of these out parcels will not receive building permits until plat action is taken. (2) Sidewalks along Castle Valley Road were not specifically located by the City when the several previous plats were reviewed encompassing all of the original golf course lands. This applicant has requested a determination as to whether they will be assessed against the north side or his client on the south side. A specific waiver was not granted on the previous preliminary plat. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolving the sidewalk issue. We feel the development on the north side should provide sidewalks inasmuch as that owner has the larger body of development. As to the out parcels, staff feels they will be corrected and plats submitted as permits are requested. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 6 - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The item was reviewed by the Commission. Staff explained its recommendation requiring the sidewalks on the north side of Castle Valley Road, which would free this developer from improvements on the south side of the road. Utilties - Additional easements required between Lots 3 and 4 and along the south side of Lots 14 and 15. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Ed Turbin represented Dillon Construction Company, the Developer of Whispering Pines Subdivision, and owner of land abutting the golf course. The three concerns he expressed were: (1) that the area should not be subdivided, (2) there should be a buffer between this proposed residential area and the golf course which he owns, and (3) since the golf course is possibly in the route of the proposed South Loop Expressway, the plat should be deferred until more specific details are available on the actual alignment. Mr. Turbin felt that this was important since three or four holes of the golf course would be affected. If the plat were to be approved, he felt that liability and access questions regarding lots in this Subdivision, which is next to his golf course, needed to be worked out. Engineering explained that there would probably be only a minor variation in the alignment in this area that would probably shift it only 1,600' to 1,700' to the south at the most; so there would be no great impact. The Commission felt that the real issue was a private one; and it was not their duty at this point to assess the implications of the South Loop. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 abstention. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 7 - File No. 753 NAME: Parkway II Commercial Subdivision LOCATION: South side of Rock Creek Parkway at Parkway Place Drive DEVELOPER: The Danny Thomas Company 212 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 374-2231 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner, Robinson, and Associates, Inc. 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-5331 AREA: 20.2 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 700 ZONING: "C-3" and "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial Subdivision PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Reduce the minimum centerline radius on proposed commercial street to reduce traffic speed. A. Existing Conditions Undeveloped parcels that are sparsely covered by brush and trees. The lots lying east of Parkway Place Drive and west of Oak Meadow are zoned "O-3." The main body of the plat is classified "C-3." April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 7 - Continued B. Development Proposal To develop a commercial small lot plat with 16 building sites. Some of the "0 -3" lots will be involved in an application for rezoning in the immediate future. It is suggested the requested zone will be "C-3" classification. The project engineer has requested a tighter turning radius on the new commercial street, Hillvale Drive, in order to increase safety. C. Fngineerinq Comments Further information as to possible use of Tracts A and D as well as Tract B needs to be provided in order to meet Engineering comments. Comments such as access easements, access curb cuts, stormwater detention, etc., are pretty normal. Please furnish further information. D. Analysis Aside from the several minor plat content items, there are only three issues that we introduce for resolution. These are: (1) sidewalks on all streets, internal and external to the project, (2) the centerline waiver, (3) prohibition of access to the parkway from any lot and an access plan for curb cuts and circulation. E. Staff Recommendation The staff, recommends approval of the plat and the waiver request subject to: all sidewalks being constructed, the Public Works Department approval of an access and curb cut plan and acceptance of the centerline variance. F. Subdivision Committee Review Since the applicant was not present, the item was not discussed in detail; however, it was mentioned to the Committee that enough information was not submitted and an access plan was needed and that sidewalks were required. Also, staff felt that endorsement of this plat would not include approval of any future rezonings. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 7 - Continued Utilities - Contact LRWU for sewer main location. Water extension, plus extension on-site fire protection required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to agreement with Traffic Engineering, and sidewalks as required per Ordinance. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 8 - File No. 756 NAME: Shady Grove Estates LOCATION: The 18000 block of Kanis Road lying on the south side of Kanis west of Stewart Road DEVELOPER: Fletcher Clement Route 3, Box 286A Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: 225-1319 ENGINEER: Summerlin Associates, Inc. 1609 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: 376-1323 AREA: 92.3 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 15 FT. NEW STREET: 2450 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 17 CENSUS TRACT: 42.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Reduction of scale of drawing to one inch equals 200'. 2. Waiver to allow cul-de-sac street length up to 2450 linear feet. 3. Waiver to allow a 24' pavement width with side ditches rather than curb and gutter. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 8 - Continued A. Existing Conditions A large tree covered rural tract in a setting of mixed uses such as auto garage and personal services with a scattering of large homes and horse farms. A. Development Proposal To divide this 92.31 acres into 15 rural residential lots exceeding five acres each. The proposal includes the construction of a single public residential street to large lot standard without curb and gutter or underground drainage. There is no street stub-out to adjoining properties inasmuch as the ownership and development pattern does not suggest a need. These large lots are so arranged as to provide one good building site on a knoll, ridge, or other prominence. Additional dedication of right-of-way is proposed for Kanis Road to minor arterial standard. C. Engineering Comments Boundary street improvements required on Kanis Road. Also, additional right -of -way is required on Kanis Road. A total 100' right-of-way is required; therefore, 50' from centerline is needed. Therefore, an additional 20' of dedication is required. D. Analysis The staff review has resulted in eight or nine deficiencies in the plat. However, there are only four that are of significance. These are: (1) The name of both the plat and street may need to be changed due to conflict with a Chicot Road plat. (2) The street standard to be applied. (3) The need for sidewalks on a rural standard roadway. (4) Sewer service and County Health Department signoff for septic system. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the plat subject to resolution of staff and engineering comments. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 8 - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The item was discussed. The applicant agreed to a 35' building line on Kanis, to change the plat and street name from Shady Grove as approved by David Hathcock, and to provide a rural street standard. He also amended his application to request two waivers of sidewalks on Kanis and the internal street. The applicant agreed to provide a restriction in the Bill of Assurance stating no resubdivision of the lot. Utilities - Sewer not available. Water main extension, plus on-site fire protection required. Water main is approximately 13,000' from this property. Acreage charge of $300 per acre applies. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: This plat name was changed to Iron Horse Estates and the interior street is Iron Horse Road. A motion for approval of the plat and sidewalks waiver on Iron Horse Road only, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 9 - File No. 755 NAME: Executive Office Park LOCATION: The intersection of Napa Valley and Hinson Road DEVELOPER: Roger Thurman 1 Financial Centre Little Rock, AR Telephone: 227-8888 ENGINEER: Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick 2501 Willow North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 758-1360 AREA: 6.33 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 7 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "O-2" PROPOSED USE: Office Park PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Private street system. A. Existing Conditions An undeveloped acreage tract on rolling terrain with frontage on two arterial streets. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 9 - Continued B. Development Proposal To develop seven office lots and two tracts on 6.33 acres. The lots are sized from .5 acres to .8 acres. Tract A is defined as a water retention tract and unbuildable. Tract' B is not clearly described as to its usage. The plat is accessed by a variable width private street ranging from 40' to 80' in right-of-way with 20' of pavement. The project engineer referenced in his cover letter a site plat for the buildings to be submitted at a later date. Staff has not reviewed such a plan. This information is not in the file at this time. It is understood that later review by the Planning Commission is authorized by the ordinance. C. Engineering Comments The Traffic Engineer needs to approve all access points and roadway configuration beside the platted area. Please contact the Traffic Engineer to get approval of the hammerhead area between Lots 4 and 5. Boundary street improvements and right-of-way dedication are required on Napa Valley and Hinson Roads. Both Hinson and Napa Valley require a 100' right-of-way. Therefore, 50' from centerline of right-of-way dedication is required. Hinson is a five-lane cross section. Napa Valley is a four-lane cross section. D. Analysis The Planning staff review of this plat reveals some 20 deficiencies. The one significant failure is to "O-2" District minimum lot size of two acres. This is not negotiable by the Planning Commission. Waivers of minimum lot size cannot be granted per Section 37-10 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The remaining items in our review while not nearly as serious indicate a need for deferral of the plat for further design. Some of these issues are access on Napa Valley at a safe site distance, width of the pavement at 20' when 36' is typically required, and parking designed into a private street system. F. Staff Recommendation Withdrawal of the plat at the Committee level with a recommendation for redesign and for complete filing. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item -9 - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant decided to withdraw the item as requested by the staff and resubmit as a long-form PUD. Utilities - Additional easements required for 16" existing sewer for main along the north side of Lot 7 in Tract A. Water main extension, plus on-site fire protection required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 10 - File No. Z -4804 NAME: John R. Berkley Planned Residential District ( Short Form) LOCATION: 100 Rosetta Street DEVELOPER: John R. Berkley 319 Belmont N. .Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: 758-5526 ENGINEER: William W. Hope P.O. Box 223 Benton, AR Telephone: 778-0786 AREA: 7000 Sq. Ft. + NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-3" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Triplex PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Parking for one car less than ordinance requirement. A. Existing Conditions A single family dwelling with two stories on a single residential lot of 50' in width. The lot is served for parking access off the alley to the rear. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 10 - Continued B. Development Proposal To make modifications that will allow occupancy as a triplex with four parking spaces. No structural expansion is proposed at this time. A variance of one parking space is requested. C. Engineering Comments None. D. Staff Analysis The review of this proposal reveals that the subject site has less than adequate access for multifamily usage. The alley could be a safety problem for turns on to and off Markham Street. The angle parking as proposed will require tenants to enter this long block at 3rd Street on the south and drive a poor alley two blocks to this parking. The neighborhood is predominately single family with a liberal scattering of duplexes. There are a few multifamily uses in the immediate area; however, these are located in and about the intersections of Kavanaugh and Markham and Markham and Johnson. There have been several new duplexes constructed within a two-block radius which seem to set a tone for a mix of single and duplex occupancy. E. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the PRD and suggests that the application be converted to a conditional use permit for duplex or possibly rezoning to "R-4." This does not rule out the possibility of continuing a PUD for a duplex; however, we do not feel that is an appropriate use of the ordinance. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 10 --Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant submitted a revised plan providing deeper head -in parking spaces. He felt that the 1,700 square feet of space was too much for just two rental units. Staff expressed its reluctance to support a rezoning to triplex due to the amount of large houses in the neighborhood which could produce potential requests for variances from the Woodruff Plan. It was felt that the redesign of the parking area also created a dangerous situation. The main issues were identified as density and parking. Utilities - Sewer available. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Several interested persons were in attendance. Staff reported that Southwestern Bell had expressed concerns about the location of the concrete parking lot and that several letters and phone calls were received. Only one person had expressed definite objections based on an increase in density, inadequate parking, and difficult access to Markham because of traffic. A letter from Mr. Brian C. Davis expressed some concerns and apprehension, but no specific objections. Staff's recommendation was stated as denial of the PRD request for a trI-plex, with a suggestion that the application be converted to a conditional use for duplex, or a rezoning to "R-4." The Applicant, Mr. Berkley, felt that less cars would be provided with the tri -plex than a duplex, since he had plans to rent out the duplex to families with two or three cars each versus renting to three singles with the tri-plex use. He also felt that there was not a very bad problem with vision on Markham, since you could see a distance of 300' to the east and 600' to the west. He agreed to widen the alley 20'. Several issues were raised by the Commissioners and concerned residents about converting this single family use to a tri-plex. Ms. Susanne Neal was concerned about parking April 7, 1967 SUBDIVISIONS Item 10 - Continued on Rosetta, and possible parking in the front yard. She also stated that there were several extremely large houses, similar to this one in the area. Some Commissioners felt that this was speculation, an inappropriate use of the PUD process, and that the area should remain single family. Some were not opposed to increasing the density to duplex, but there seemed to be some general agreement that a tri -plex was too much of an increase. Ms. Lucy Abraham of the Janet Jones Company explained that the structure of 2600 square feet was currently in disrepair, and had been on the market for one year at $45,500. Her opinion was that it would never sell as a single family unit due to its location at the corner of Markham and Rosetta. She asked that the Commission look at each site's individual contribution to the overall upgrading of the entire neighborhood. She felt that this was a good attempt to improve the neighborhood through the upgrading of the unit. The Commission, however, still expressed apprehension at setting a precedent in the area. The applicant was asked whether or not he would like to amend his plan to provide for a duplex use on the property, he agreed to do so. A motion was made for approval of a modified PUD request for a duplex use, subject to working out parking with the Traffic Engineer. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 11 - File No. Z- 3708 -A NAME: Ivy, Planned Industrial District (Long Form) LOCATION: 9811 Interstate 30 Frontage Road DEVELOPER: Carmey Ivy 9811 I -30 Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: ENGINEER /CONTRACTOR Gordon General Contractors 17200 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: 821-4011 AREA: 1.15 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" General Commercial PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use Commercial with "C-3" and "C-4" activities PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions The site is occupied by two buildings. One building contains general retail use and is the larger of the two at 12,650 square feet. This building requires 42 parking spaces. The second building being the one at issue contains 3,840 square feet, including the addition proposed and requires 6.4 spaces. The total requirement is 48 parking spaces. The existing lot contains 49. This site abuts the Munsey Products Company on two sides and a large travel trailer dealer on the east. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 11 - Continued B. Development Proposal To expand the smaller of the two buildings to add more shop space to the tool and die business. A 100 percent increase in building floor area is proposed. No expansion of the large building is involved in this application. The use mix is to be that permitted by right in "C-3," "C-4," and "I-2." C. Engineering Comments Stormwater detention required on-site. D. Analysis The staff review identifies no problems with the proposal as to the use. The parking and neighborhood relationships are also good. The reason for this PUD approach is that the property contains uses that collectively will not fit any single district, nor will the conditional use permit process allow the development of the several activities on a single site. The setbacks on this property existing and proposed are at odds with ordinance. However, no problem exists with adjacent buildings or uses in the area of the east side yard. Adjacent buildings lie to the south or west and were placed on those sites under previous site plan review or prior ordinance provisions. The side yard which proposes less than a standard industrial side yard abuts a large lot or open field which contains a large number of recreational vehicles. The building on that site is well over 100' from this property line. E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the proposal as submitted subject to placing the project quantitative data on the site plan. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 11 - Continued F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was not present. Staff explained its recommendation to the Committee. The applicant would be required to indicate quantitative data on the site plan. Utilities - Sewer main extension required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 12 - File No. Z -4806 NAME: Davidson Properties Planned Residential District (Short Form) LOCATION: At the west end of McGovern Drive and Breckenridge Addition DEVELOPER: Davidson Properties P.O. Box 7347 Little Rock, AR 72217 Telephone: 227-5357 ENGINEER: Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick 2501 Willow Street North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 758-1360 AREA: 3 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USE: Residential in a Planned Unit Development format for zero lot line PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions The property consists of a wooded knoll .lying at the end of a residential street. The property rises approximately 50' in elevation out of the Grassy Flat Creek. The project site has over 500' of Interstate 430 frontage and an apartment complex on the north. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 12 - Continued The Natural Resources Complex, including the Game and Fish Commission lies to the south. B. Development Proposal To construct eight or nine units on a zero lot line lot format. The proposal utilizes a private access easement system to serve each of the several units. The homes appear to be in the 1400 to 1600 square foot range, including a garage attached. A significant portion of the tract (Lot 10) will be dedicated as floodway. Lot 9 does not propose a specific building site but that it be built upon if and when a design suitable to the terrain is developed. The lot sizes are a minimum of 4,730 square feet with a pro rata share of the common space and drives bringing the average to ±12,000 square feet. This figure does not include Lot 10 in the computation. C. Engineering Comments All driveway widths and locations shall be approved by the Traffic Engineer. It is preferred to have a 20' driveway if two-lane traffic is allowed behind the buildings. Stormwater detention shall be shown on-site. Attach calculations to the drawings. D. Analysis The staff review has developed only minor issues for discussion, except that the plat and plan need more quantitative data. The area of Lot 10 will be dedicated per City Board policy for floodway. The staff reaction to Lot 9 is that free form siting of a house without specifying on this plan is appropriate so long as one building site is the limit. The Fire Department has requested a minimum drive width of 20' throughout, and as a follow-up to that a requirement for a termination device on McGovern Drive. This is especially important if this developer plans a gate or controlled entry to the project. The only other points for discussion are compatibility with adjacent conventional lots at 7,000 square feet plus screening along the south boundary line, resolving parks plan requirement for Priority Two open space and an on-site fire line and hydrant plan. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 12 - Continued E. Staff Recommendation Approval of the Planned Unit Development subject to: (1) completing the plat and plan content requirements, (2) dedicate the floodway, (3) provide a turnaround for McGovern, (4) minimum 20' drives, (5) water and fire plan on -site, (6) Public Works approval. F. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant agreed to adhere to staff's comments with the exception of the turnaround. He felt also that a 20' service drive to the back of the lot was not necessary since it won't be used by fire, garbage, etc. He requested a 16' or 18' pavement width. He felt that the area in the rear could be serviced by a fire hose. Utilities - Additional sewer easements required across Lot 10. Contact LRWU. Water main extension plus on -site protection required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Applicant was present. There were several concerned residents from the neighborhood in attendance. Some of those present expressed concerns about the proposed development. Mr. Steve Young, an adjacent property owner, objected to density and traffic. Ms. Rita Hart expressed similar objections, in addition to concerns about the access /utility easement which would abut her property. Mr. Dean Roberts of 17 Warwick felt that the project would negatively impact their property values, due to a loss of the buffer between Breckenridge and the Interstate. He was especially concerned about: (1) the paved eastment on the east side of the proposed development, (he asked that it be kept green), (2) maintenance of the privacy fence, and (3) minimization of tree removal. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 12 - Continued Mr. Randy Davidson, the Applicant, explained that there would be a 6' opaque wooden fence around the perimeter of the property with an exception of the south side; and there would be a property- owners association for maintenance, and that the houses would be 1,700 to 1,900 square feet and sell for $105,000. He had no current plans to build on Lot 9 which has difficult terrain. The residents were assured that any development other than single family on this lot would mean renotification of property-owners. Finally, a motion for approval of the amended application was made and passed, subject to: (1) a minimum of 1,700 square feet house size, (2) the construction of the fence when the streets are built, (S) a drive ending at the northwest corner of Lot 8, (4) Fire Department approval. The vote 10 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 abstention (Massie). April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 13 NAME: Best Tire Company Conditional Use Permit (Z-1662-B) LOCATION: The south side of Markham Park Drive just north of West Markham (104 Markham Park Drive) OWNER /APPLICANT: Best Car Care, Inc./ Gordon Duckworth PROPOSAL: To construct a 6,600 square feet vehicle maintenance and service facility (six service bays) and 32 parking spaces (counting six service bays) in Phase I and a 3,000 square feet retail addition and 10 parking spaces in Phase II on .755 acres of land that is zoned "C-3" /Conditional Use Permit. *Note: The original conditional use permit was for the same use. The proposal is basically a revised site plan. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to a collector street (Markham Park Drive). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located in a commercial subdivision that is just under construction. A commercial use is located to the west while the remainder of the adjacent property is vacant. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 13 - Continued 3. On-Site Drives and Parking One 30 feet access drive to Markham Park Drive will service this site. A total of 42 parking spaces are proposed (inclusive of six service bays). 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has proposed screening and landscaping as per City ordinance requirements. 5. Analysis The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area and meets ordinance requirements with the exception of the rear yard setback. Ordinance requirements are for a 25 feet rear yard setback. The applicant needs to reduce the proposed Phase II building in order to meet setback requirements. 6. City Engineer Comments 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to any City Engineering comments and to the applicant agreeing to submit a revised site plan which allows a 25 feet rear yard setback from the property line to the building. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Staff stated that in addition to the 25' rear setback line there is a 25' setback restriction from the floodway (total 25' setback from property line). The staff also stated that the dumpster needed to be relocated out of the 25' rear setback area and an existing wastewater easement. The City Engineer also stated that the applicant should contact them to determine the minimum floor elevation for the proposed building. The applicant stated that he submit a revised site plan. The applicant also April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 13 - Continued stated that the proposal was for tire sales and minor repair, and that no major auto repair or body work would be performed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-7-87) The Planning staff offered its recommendation of approval of this application. The applicant was present. There was a brief discussion of the proposal. A motion was made for approval as filed, including the City Engineer's comments and the revised site plan. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 noes. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 14 NAME: Brookside Circle Day -Care Center (Z-4803) LOCATION: The south side of Brookside Circle just west of Brookside Drive ( #5 Brookside Circle) OWNER /APPLICANT: Edd G. and Beverly A. Taylor PROPOSAL: To convert an existing 1,800 square feet single family structure to a home care /day-care center with a capacity of 14 children on a lot that is zoned "R -2." The hours of operation would be from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located on a residential street (Brookside Circle). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood Brookside Circle is a cul-de-sac that is residential in character. The site is abutted on all four sides by single family uses. The single family located to the north is above the grade of this structure. This property is not well suited for a full day-care center use. The property does not have an on-site drop off area and Brookside Circle empties into a very busy collector street (Brookside Drive). A full day-care center is not compatible with the surrounding area. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 14 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The site contains one access drive approximately 9'x 35' on Brookside Circle. No on-site drop off or parking area has been proposed. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The applicant has proposed using the existing fences and foliage to meet Landscape Ordinance requirements. 5. Analysis The staff does not feel that a full day-care center use would be compatible with the surrounding area (see note #2). The location of this property on a dead-end street (cul-de-sac) would exacerbate the negative impact on the adjacent single family uses. The staff feels that 14 children is too many, but would consider supporting up to 10 children allowed by a special use permit. 6. City Engineer Comments 7. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends withdrawal and /or denial of the conditional use permit and recommends approval of a special use permit allowing up to 10 children if the applicant so desires. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that he had talked with all his neighbors and that no one had any problem with his proposal. A brief discussion ensued. The applicant indicated he still hoped to pursue a conditional use permit which would allow 14 children capacity. April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item 14 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (4-7-87) The Planning staff offered its recommendation and in the process outlined the reasons for our support of a special use permit on the site with a limit of 10 children. The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, were present. Both offered arguments in support of their proposal. They each added additional information to the application. In the course of their discussion, it was determined that the application was generated by contact with both the State of Arkansas Social Services agency and the City of Little Rock Zoning Enforcement Office. A lengthy discussion of the proposal followed. The principle points of discussion centered on access and parking, the total numbers of children, the potential for other caregivers on the site, and neighborhood support for the application. At the end of this discussion, it was determined that the land use issue was the primary concern, and the discussion indicated that the Commission felt the use appropriate to the site with certain limitations. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit subject to several conditions. These conditions being: 1. The operators of this day -care center must occupy this residence as their principle residence. 2. The use will be limited to 14 children. 3. This conditional use permit is to run with the Taylor's ownership and occupancy of the premises and will terminate if the property is sold or they move from the premises. 4. The hours of operation are to be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., five days per week. 5. There are to be no other employees on the premises. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 abstention (Dorothy Arnett). oATE Ae12.1k 1, 19d7 ZONING MEMBER W.Riddick, III-.. -- J.Schlereth R.Massie B.Sipes J.Nicholson w.Rector W.Ketcher D.Arnett O. J. Jones R.Collins F.Perkins P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS SUBDIVISION , 2.3 4 5 " 7 8 , 10 \( l'L Ii 14 V V V � ,/ ✓ V ,.,V v V ✓ V • V V I/ II' JI' ✓ ""' ,,,,,, � V ,,,. ✓ II"V V y II' V ,/ IAe ,,,,,, ,r ,,,,,. ,/II' Aa JI" II' V V y ,,,,,,, ,, y' ,, ✓ ,/ ,/'fl" V y f/,,,, V V y' y' ,,, ,/ ,,,,, y ,/ // ' ,,, ii' y ,,,,,. V ,,,,,. II' ,,, V ,,,,,. V'y ,,,,, ,,. ,/ ,,, y V "' � ,, I' y ,,,,,,, V" ,/-,,,,. I/ y ,/ v ,/ V ,,,, y � V ,,,,, V y ,,, y y A-e. II' V ,,,,,, ,/ y',,, y � y y ,,,,, V'II' V J,, ,,,,,, ,;, V II' ,, ,r V .,,,,, V ,,,, II' ,/ • V V ,,,,, V J/ J/ y :v v v y J/ ,,,,, ,,, ✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTI\IN \ I I I r. ' � "-� r"\ I \ �� \... - April 7, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman