The URL can be used to link to this page

pc_11 15 1988subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 15, 1988 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being eleven in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members present: David J. Jones, Chairman Walter G. Riddick Martha Miller Stephen A. Leek Rose Collins Jerilyn Nicholson Connie Whitfield John McDaniel John Schlereth Fred Perkins Bill Rector City Attorney present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES NOVEMBER 15, 1988 Deferred Items: A. Hamby Request for Waiver of Subdivision Regulations B. East Markham Alley Closure C. Cantrell Oaks "Long -form PCD (Z-5059) Preliminary Plats: 1. Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition 2. Westfield Subdivision 3. Walnut Hills Subdivision 4. Candlewood Subdivision III 5. Smith Subdivision Multiple Building Site Plan Review: 6. Markham Park Shopping Center Planned Unit Development: 7. Hinson Corner "Short-form” PCD (Z-5105) 8. McCrary "Short-form" PRD (Z-5108) 9. Generic Pharmacy "Short-form" PCD (Z-5109) 10. Storage World Amended PCD 11. Gray & Alford "Short-form" PCD Conditional Use Permit: 12. Buchanan Drive Duplex C.U.P. (Z-5100) 13. Highway 10 Daycare C.U.P. (Z-5106) 14. Cellular One C.U.P. (Z-5112) LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES NOVEMBER 15, 1988 (Continued) Zoning Site Plan Review: 15. Pleasant Valley Living Center Site Plan Review (Z-5107) 16. Hope Site Plan Review 16A. Rezoning 17. Dillard's Site Plan Review (Z-5098-A) Right-of-Way Abandonment: 18. Sibley Hole Road 19. Riverside Drive 20. High Street 21. Alley Closure - Riverside Park Addition 22. Alley Closure - Stillman & Buchanan's Addition 23. Alley Closure - Block 1, Cox's Addition 24. Alley Closure - Block 171, John Barrow Addition Extraterritorial Requests: 25. Cotton - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements 26. Bryant - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements 27. Diemer - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements 28. Epps - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements 29. Briemer - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements November 15, 1988 Item No. A NAME: Hamby Request for Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance LOCATION: Section 15, T-1-S, R-12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas APPLICANT: Lloyd J. Hamby 304 Timothy Lane Little Rock, AR 72206 ENGINEER: Dillinger Co., Inc. P. O. Box 9425 Little Rock, AR 72219 Phone: 375-0688 STAFF REPORT: This item originated as a Subdivision Violation, due to a land transfer of only one acre. The Subdivision Ordinance applies to all divisions of land that are composed of less than five acres. Mr. and Mrs. Doil Hamby purchased the land in 1965, paying $25 per month until 1970, when the owner was paid the last $200. In November 1972 through 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Saville purchased a portion of the tract from the Hambys. At first, there was a doublewide trailer but the Saville's later enclosed the trailer. The Applicant, who is the nephew of Mr. and Mrs. Doil Hamby, has explained that a 125 foot by 218 foot parcel has been transferred to him and his wife so that it can be passed on to other heirs. He and his wife are financially assisting the family and wanted to place the land in their name at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Reserved. This item is in the Extraterritorial jurisdiction. SUBDlVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. and Mrs. Hamby were present. They explained that their aunt and uncle had lived on this land for 18 years and they had recently transferred the property to the Hamby's for safekeeping, since they were being financially supported by November 15, 1988 Item No. A (Continued) the younger couple. Mrs. Hamby explained that no physical change had taken place on the property and that the cost of platting and improving the property would exceed its current value of $1500. She also asked why the original Subdivider, a Mrs. Rose, was not held liable for her actions. The Committee discussed the item and decided to defer it for further consideration to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMM.ISS.ION, ACT ION: (August 23, 1988) As requested by the Applicant, a motion for deferral to the October 4, 1988 meeting was made a passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff presented a letter from the Hamby's that questioned why the sole responsibility for the illegal subdivisions of the land did not lie with the original subdivider, a Mrs. Rose. They also wanted to know why no statute of limitations was in effect on these violations, and just how far back could the City go. The Committee decided that further discussion of this item should be done at the Planning Commission level. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (October 4, 1988) A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: No further information was submitted regarding this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for withdrawal of the request was made and passed, due to the fact that the original violation of the Subdivision Ordinance took place more than one year ago, exceeding the statute of limitations. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. B - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: East Markham Alley Abandonment Location: The one-half block north of Markham and Scott, east side of Scott Street. Owner /Applicant: Daniel W. Baldwin /Alright Auto Parks, Inc. Request: The request is to abandon that portion of alley and return it to the private use as part of a parking lot that is located in Block 34, Original City of Little Rock. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way Several departments within the City of Little Rock have expressed objection to this alley abandonment due to the possible future development of the City's property to the north. 2. Master Street Plan There are no issues within the Master Street Plan associated with this request. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets Presently, no needs exist for this alley to the adjacent streets but future development needs may exist for the property to the north. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain Presently this alley is being used as part of the parking lot for Alright Parking, Inc. The area is paved and striped. The alley contours run from east to west. 5. Development Potential No development potentials have been expressed to Staff other than for the purpose of parking which it presently serves. November 15, 1988 Item. No. 8 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Surrounding the property on the east, south and west are commercial uses with a park, Riverfront to the north. Streets in proximity of this location are West Markham, a collector to the south; Main Street, a minor arterial to the west; Scott Street, a principal arterial to the west; and La Harpe Boulevard, an expressway to the north and east. 7. Neighborhood Position Several departments within the City of Little Rock have expressed opposition to the closure of this alley. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company retains the right of ingress and egress for future needs. 9. Reversionary Rights Ownership of this alley will return back to the private sector, respectively Alright Parking, Inc. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues There are no apparent welfare and safety issues involved in this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the alley abandonment due to the objections raised by several of the departments within the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Due to the question of ownership regarding the parcel of property north of the alley, Staff recommended to the Planning Commission a deferral until the November 15, 1988 meeting. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. C NAME: Cantrell Oaks (Long-Form) PCD (Z-5059) LOCATION: Highway 10 and Sam Peck Road DEVELOPER: Robert Peck #15 Piedmont Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 227-4826 ENGINEER: White - Daters and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 10.7 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST .0 ZONING: PROPOSED USE: Mini-warehouse and restaurant A. ProposaI /Request 1. For PCD approval of a site of 10.7 acres for use as a mini - warehouse and restaurant. 2. Mini - warehouses will be located on the south of the site with a restaurant that has a seating capacity of 200 persons to be located on the north. The Applicant explains that the many residential units in the vicinity create a demand for the proposed uses. 3. Development Data: (1) Site Area - 10.6916 acres (2) Buildings - storage units.... 23,422 Restaurant .......... 5,240 (3) Parking - storage ........ 3 spaces - restaurant.... 40 spaces (4) Buildings .66 acres - paved area 2.33 acres Total 2.99 acres (5) Open Space 7.70 acres or 72% of Total November 15, 1988 Item No. C (Continued) B. Existing Conditions The site is located within the area indicated as a Transition Zone on the present Land Use Plan. A drainage course and sewer easement bisects the property. Cantrell, which abuts on the north, is presently undergoing reconstruction as a five-lane arterial, and Peck Road is a collector leading into a residential area that is composed of mixed residential uses. C. Lssues /Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design 1. The proposed use is contrary to the Plan. 2. Verify right-of-way line on Highway 10. D. Engineering Comments 1. Provide collector street improvements to west side of Sam Peck Road. 2 Limit driveways to one per street frontage, 40' maximum width. 3. All driveways should intersect public right-of-way at a 90° angle. 4. Engineer should confirm adequacy of Sam Peck Road drainage structure. 5. Provide easements for all drainage. 6. Conform to detention and excavation ordinances. E. Staff Recommendation Denial, due to proposed uses that are contrary to the Land Use Plan. This area is located in the Transition Zone, which proposes multifamily and office uses only. Staff fears that a precedent will be set for other such uses in the area if this is approved. There are other vacant commercial land parcels on Highway 10. November 15, 1988 Item No. C (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant was present. Engineering stated their comments: (a) Improve west side of Sam Peck, (b) Reduce to a minimum of one driveway off Cantrell, (c) Provide 110' of right-of-way, (d) Confirm that drainage structure is adequate. Mr. John Powell, architect, and Mr. Joe White, engineer, presented the application. Mr. Powell explained the developmental concept and showed the Committee a scaled model of the Project. He offered to eliminate all drives to Cantrell and take access from Sam Peck Road. Engineering felt that this was a good idea but did state that the City could not require the developer to do so. He was asked to indicate the buffer /fence, on-site fire protection, and submit the cross- ection of the mini- warehouses. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (August 23, 1988) A motion was made for deferral as requested by the Applicant. He failed to get his notices out in time. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: No further information was submitted regarding this item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) As requested by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 1 NAME: Pleasant Valley Living Center LOCATION: Located on the south side of Hinson Road west of Hinson Loop DEVELOPER /OWNER: Southern Key Investments c/o The Hathaway Group 1500 Worthen Bank Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Steven Bond Phone: 372-1700 ENGINEER: White-Daters & Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 A. ProposaI /Request 1. To plat 5.0216 acres into two lots for a nursing home use. 2. Waivers requested: (a) Street improvements to Hinson Road - due to the street widening currently underway. (b) PubIic Street requirements for access drive - necessary for development of property. B. Existing Conditions Land uses bordering this site include residential to the south and office to the west. The land is generally flat and covered with mature vegetation, except for the presence of an existing one-story rock and frame structure on lot 1. C. Engineering Comments Engineering is opposed to any waivers of street improvements. All interior driveways should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Frontage on Hinson Road will require dedication to provide one-half of a 90 foot right-of-way and one-half of a 60 foot pavement. This site will also require conformance to the Storm Water Detention Plan Ordinance. D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. The fifty (50) foot access easement is the only access to Lot 2. November 15, 1988 Item No. 1 E. AnaIysis A PUD proposal for an elderly retirement center was previously approved on this site. The current proposal involves the use of Lot 2 only as a nursing home. Since the property is zoned "O-2," a related issue involving site plan review has also been submitted as Item No. 15. The site plan will give the specifics of the proposal as they relate to the location of the building, the drives and the parking. The Applicant has requested waivers of street improvements to Hinson Road and the public requirement for the access drive. Justification for each request has been given; however, Engineering has refused to lend its support to any waiver. The main issue for resolution involves the sole 50 foot access to Lot 2. Since it is the only access to Lot 2, it must be constructed to public street standards. The pavement should be 27 feet in width to the south end of Lot 1, and have a 50 foot turning radius. The intersection with the street should also be designed as a public street. For fire safety reasons, the access easement should extend around the north and western boundaries of Lot 2. Notices are required. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The main discussion regarded existing access and utility easement on the eastern side of the site. The owner of Lot 1 felt that the easement was for his benefit, the attorney for the Applicant felt otherwise. It was determined that the City only wanted the dedication of a public service and access easement, with all other concerns considered a private matter. Staff requested that the plat reflect the signature of the property owner of Lot 1 as required by preliminary plat submission requirements. Mr. Steven Bonds, the Applicant, requested a waiver of Hinson Road improvements and construction of the drive to public standards, due to November 15, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) economic reasons. He explained that the 50 foot turn-around or loop would eliminate the project. He was asked to meet with the Engineering Staff regarding this request. The Committee identified the issues to be addressed as: (1) construction of public standards on the drive; (2) waivers of pipe -stem length and lot frontage on a dedicated street; (3) dumpster location; (4) utility easement location; (5) meeting of requirements on-site for Lot 2. The Sewer Department representative stated that sewer was available, but there was currently none available to the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) Mr. Steven Bonds, Agent, and Mr. Mark Spradley, Attorney, represented the Developer. Mr. Spradley felt that all of the issues regarding parking, easements and signature of the owner of Lot 2 had been addressed. He submitted a plat with that signature. Mr. Bonds stated that they are revising their application to eliminate request for waivers to Hinson Road improvements and the construction of the access drive. Several other waivers were requested. They included: (1) the waiver of the requirement that each lot abut a public street, since Lot 2 does not meet that requirement; (2) six foot screening; and (3) intrusion within the 15 foot undisturbed buffer area by a drive. Staff was not opposed to the granting of these waivers. A motion for approval of the plat and waivers was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 2 NAME: Westfield Subdivision NAME: Northwest of the intersection of Highway 10 and Taylor Loop DEVELOPER: Steve Deer North Little Rock, AR ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Pat McGetrick Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick, Inc. 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR Phone: 223-9900 AREA: 18.6 acres NO., OF LOTS 42 FT. OF NEW ST. 2600 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 18.6 acres into 42 lots and 2600 feet of new street for residential use. 2. Lots will be constructed in phases, with Phase I consisting of 34 lots and Phase II including 8 lots. Several areas have been designated as "common areas." B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area where the predominate use is rural - light single family. C. Engineering Comments Street lights will be required in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Street name signs will also be the responsibility of the developer. Additional right - of -way on Highway 10 to conform to the Master Street Plan requirements for a principal arterial will be required. Improvements on Highway 10 to Master Street Plan specifications will also be required. The radius of the curves on the interior of this subdivision should be 150 feet to the center line unless the applicant requests classification of these streets as minor residential. Unless these streets are classified November 15, 1988 Item No. 2 (Contined) as minor residential, a sidewalk on one side for total footage will be required. This site will also require conformance to Storm Water Detention and Excavation Ordinance. D. Issues /Discussions /Legal /Technical Design 1. Maintenance and use of common areas. 2. Notices are required. 3. Revise plan according to Staff comments. 4. Resolve street classification issue. E. Analysis The applicant has submitted a proposal for a single family development. No waivers are requested. This site was previously approved for a single family development that was never constructed. The type of subdivision proposed is not a concern of the Staff. Staff suggests that the maintenance and use of the common areas be identified and clearly indicated in the Bill of Assurance; and that the 10 foot common area that is adjacent to Lots 25 and 40 to be removed. Notices should be given to abutting property owners. Staff opposes the phasing scheme that is proposed, since approval of the development of the back portion of the project would constitute approval of a project with no street frontage. The phasing should be reversed. Staff is not convinced that this should be classified as a minor street. The applicant should explain. F. Staff Recommendation Recommendation is reserved until the comments are addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was discussion regarding the development of the street as residential or minor residential. The Applicant preferred a 75 foot horizontal radius, which is minor November 15, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) residential. He agreed to provide sidewalks. The Engineering Staff preferred a 150 radius for a better designed street. It was determined that a variance would be needed if the street was built with a 75 foot radius, since minor residential streets should not have more than 35 lots. The Applicant explained that the 10 foot common area would consist of a sign which will prevent disturbance from car headlights and that the maintenance of these areas will be the responsibility of the Property Owners Association. He was informed that the sign in the 10 foot area made need approval from another review board. The Applicant also explained that he had proposed this phasing because Highway 10 is under construction and they are ready to move forward with Phase II. He agreed to provide improvements in the public right-of-way and do all of the subdivision in one phase in order to eliminate Staff's concerns regarding the phasing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) As requested by the Applicant, the item was withdrawn from further consideration. A motion to this affect was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 3 NAME: Walnut Hills Subdivision LOCATION: Shackleford Road and Mimi Lane DEVELOPER: Savers Federal of Arkansas Capitol and Spring Little Rock, AR ENGINEER /APPLICANT: Patrick McGetrick Manes, Castin, Massie & McGetrick 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR Phone: 223-9900 AREA: 0.262 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Residential A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 0.262 acres into one lot for single family development. B. Existing Conditions This lot is the last undeveloped parcel in a mixed residential area. The plot was not developed originally, due to the desire for a means of access to Shackleford from the nearby multifamily. Single family homes abut to the northwest and southeast. The Waterford, a large apartment complex, abuts on the southwest. C. Engineerin Comments None D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Notices required. E. Analysis Notices are required to abutting property owners and those across the street. Staff has no problems with the request since it is a proposal that provides for continuation of the existing trend in the area. November 15, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was discussed and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 4 NAME: Candlewood Subdivision III LOCATION: Located off Candlewood, west of Marine Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: AREA: 36.385 acres NO. OF LOTS 5 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Proposal 1. To subdivide 36.385 acres into five lots for single family development. The lots range in size from 6.181 acres to 8.758 acres and are to be served by a 50 foot private drive, utility and drainage easement. 2. Easement across lot 3 for future development to the west. 3. Access to the lots will be by private street. B. Existing Conditions A wooden, rugged topography characterizes this site that consists of elevations which range from 250 feet to 620 feet. The property is abutted by single family on the south and east, a 100 foot railroad right-of-way on the north, and undeveloped property to the south. C. Engineering Comments At the proposed street must be private, a dedicated turn-around or cul-de-sac at the end of the public maintenance should be provided. Private streets should be built to public standards as protection against future conversion to a public road. Conformance to Storm Water Detention will be required. November 15, 1988 Item No. 4 (Continued) D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Discussion of private street access. 2. Notices required. 3. Discussion of potential for use of private street for future development involving two or more lots. E. Analysis This proposal represents a continuation of development of properties by the Char -Beck Trust. Phases I and II abut this site. One of Staff's major concerns involves the proposed and potential use of a private street. The Ordinance now allows development of private streets, but Staff usually feels that these streets should be developed to the same standards as those of public streets. Staff requests that specific design criteria for the private street be submitted prior to the Public Hearing. Notices should be given to abutting property owners. Due to the small number of lots on the steep topography, Staff is not recommending construction of sidewalks. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of the issues noted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant was not present, but the item was briefly discussed. Staff explained that private street requirements applied. A public access easement is to be provided and reflected in the Bill of Assurance. No gate is to be in front of the public street and Water Works must approve the fire hydrant location. Engineering requested a cul-de-sac at the end of Marina Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for deferral, as requested by the Applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 5 NAME: Smith Subdivision LOCATION: 3008 Lawson Road DEVELOPER: George H. Smith 3008 Lawson Road Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER /SURVEYOR: Ben Kitler, Jr. 28 Dena Drive Little Rock, AR 72206 AREA: 2.9194 acres NO. OF LOTS 2 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: Outside city PROPOSED USE: Commercial A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 2.9194 acres into two lots for commercial use. B. Existing Conditions This site is currently being used for commercial. A one-story metal warehouse building is on the northern portion and one-story rigid frame metal building with office, parts and truck storage is on lot 1 toward the southeast. C. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Minimum lot frontage required. 2. Pipe-stem exceeds requirements. 3. Location of parking. 4. Identify use. 5. Correct contour numbers. D. Engineering Comments Additional right-of-way and improvements will be required to meet Master Street Plan minor arterial standards. November 15, 1988 Item No. 5 (Continued) E. Analysis Staff would like further information on the uses proposed. Since this is outside the City, there is no zoning authority. For plats in this area, a 50 foot minimum lot frontage is required. For commercial uses, a 100 foot minimum is required. The pipe-stem will require a waiver. The Bill of Assurance should also guarantee common use relationships of the parking and drives since common use is apparent. F. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant explained that the intent was to store old MAC cars in the building on Lot 2. Staff explained that one issue to be discussed involved whether there would be a 60 foot lot minimum frontage as is required on lots outside the City, or 100 foot lot minimum frontage is as required on commercial lots. The Applicant has only 50 feet of frontage on Lot 2, so a waiver is required for this and the length of the pipe-stem. The Applicant was asked to correct his contours on the plat and was informed that sewer was not available. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 6 NAME: Markham Park Shopping Center LOCATION: North side of Markham Park Drive, 120 feet east of Bowman Road DEVELOPER: Larry Shelton The Danny Thomas Company 400 Centre Place 212 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374 -2231 ENGINEER: Townley, Williams, Blair Architects 18 Corporate Hill Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 224 -1900 AREA: 5.111 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "C -3" PROPOSED USE: Shopping center A. Proposal /Request 1. To construct a retail shopping center consisting of 44,500 square feet in three buildings on 5.111 acres. 2. Construction will begin in 1988 with completion scheduled for the summer of 1989. B. Development Statistics 1. Major tenant ............ 15,000 square feet 2. Speciality shops........ 24,000 square feet 3. Lease building ............. ,.5,500 square feet Total lease area ... 44,500 square feet 4. Parking ................. 238 cars 5.35 cars /1,000 feet C . Engineering Comments The proposed drive across the southern boundary of this tract should be coordinated with the development of the Mega Market - Markham Commercial Center to the east and the Markham Commercial Center site plan adjusted to November 15, 1988 Item No. 6 (Continued) accommodate this drive. The parking lot design for this Markham Park Shopping Center should be revised to eliminate parking spaces which back onto this connecting drive. This site will require conformance to the Storm Water Detention Ordinance and will require conformance to the Excavation Ordinance if the total lot area exceeds 5 acres. D. Analysis This site is located in an area that is undergoing rapid commercial development. A Sunkist Dry Cleaners, Medi -stat and Petty's Drug will abut on the west; Mega - Mart will abut on the east. The newly opened Bowman Curve Shopping Center is west across Bowman Road. There are no major concerns with the proposal, except for the comments regarding the redesign of the parking and drives. The applicant should submit a revised plan reflecting those concerns before the Public Hearing. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: This item was discussed by the Committee. It was decided that the Applicant would work with Engineering to revise parking on the southeastern portion of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for approval, subject to the submission of a plan showing the required revision of the parking on the southeast corner, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 7 NAME: Hinson Corner "Short- form” PCD (Z -5105) LOCATION: Southeast corner of Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads DEVELOPER: Flake and Company P. 0. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 376-8005 ENGINEER: Summerlin Associates, Inc. 1609 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376 -1323 AREA: 2.69 acres NO. OF LOTS 2 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Office /Limited retail A. Proposal /Request 1. For PCD approval of a 2.69 acre site for use as an office and retail development. 2. That the two tracts involved in the development be kept separate and be coordinated through cross - easements and points of ingress and egress. This is to: (a) permit the future sale of either tract allowing for economic flexibility; (b) to maintain the office environment on Hinson Road, while upgrading development along Hinson Loop Road, utilizing a mixture of office-retail uses; and (c) allowing for a two-phase development of the site. 3. Phasing: (a.) Plans for Phase I include a combination office/retail center emphasizing a strong French traditional architectural design. The "L" shaped structure will consist of 21,400 square feet with bays varying in size from 1,000 to 1,900 square feet. Construction materials will consist of metal stud framing, stucco-drywall with sloped standing seamed metal roofs, French style entry doors and windows. November 15, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) There will be special emphasis placed on the pedestrian areas, walkways, entrances and landscaping of a very high quality and design (colored canvas awnings, textured and patterned walks, traditional lantern style pole lighting, dense groundcover and landscaping). (b.) Phase II will encompass the smaller Hinson Road tract as a single office building development. Architectural design would be coordinated and compliment the Phase I design. 4. Land Use Uses have been extracted from a combination of office classifications (O-1 through O-3) and commercial classification (C-1 through C-3). The applicant is requesting 60 percent retail to 40 percent office usage. 5 Developmental Time-frame The project will be constructed within the time - frame designated in the Ordinance. B. Development Statistics 1. Site: Phase 1 ............ 84,876 square feet /1.95 acres Phase 11.......... 32,292 square feet /0.74 acres Total........ 117,128 square feet /2.69 acres 2 BuiIding area: Phase 1 ............ 21,400 square feet Phase 11............7,150 square feet Total......... 28,550 square feet November 15, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) 3. Parking: Phase I ................86 cars (4 handicapped) (1 per 248 sq. ft.) Phase II ............. .44 cars (2 handicapped) (1 per 163 sq. ft.) Total ............ 130 cars (6 handicapped) (1 per 220 sq. ft.) 4. Building Coverage: Phase I ................25 percent Phase II ...............22 percent Total .............24 percent 5. Open Space: Phase I .................0.45 acres .... 23 percent Phase II ................0.14 acres... .19 percent Total ..............0.59 acres .... 22 percent 6. Usage: 60 percent retail..... 17,130 square feet 40 percent office..... 11,420 square feet C. Engineering Comments The right-of-way and improvements on Hinson Road should be to Master Street Plan collector standards. See also additional comments on this tract issued to Richard Wood on August 26, 1988. November 15, 1988 item No. 7 (Continued) D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Proposed land use and percentage of retail development. 2. Additional buffering to shield residences to the north. 3. Discussion of Engineering Comments and amount of curb cuts on Hinson Road. E. Analysis This submission includes a request for a commercial office development with a mix of 60 percent retail and 40 percent office. It is on property that was previously considered for a commercial shopping center. Staff has been against commercial development on this property in the past; it is now opposed to the percentage of the proposed amount to be developed as commercial use. Staff recommends that only 35 percent be developed as retail. Even though the plan itself is very well designed, the amount of commercial use creates a precedent for extensive commercial development east of Rodney Parham and is contrary to the approved Land Use Plan. This could only serve to adversely affect the neighboring residential area to the north. Past actions by the City Board of Directors have discouraged commercial uses west of Green Mountain Drive. Staff recommends a 25 foot front buffer on both streets. A cross-section of the smaller building is requested. The applicant has submitted a letter stating adherence to all of Engineering's comments except one. This concerns the applicant's feeling that the three curb cuts along Hinson Loop are not excessive considering the following: 1. Excessive frontage on Hinson Loop Road (427 feet); 2. The developers agreement to improve and widen Hinson Loop Road as discussed; 3. Changing the service entrance from a two-way to a one-way access; 4. Two shared access points for Phase I and II; and 5. Orderly flow of traffic within the development which allows for smoother access to and from Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads. November 15, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) F. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff explained that the Land Use Plan designated office use for this site. Objections were also stated to the proposed amount of retail to be built since Staff was concerned about retail west of Rodney Parham due to adverse impacts on traffic and fear of setting a precedence in the area. The guideline usually employed is ten percent (10%) commercial in some office zones and Staff does not desire to go beyond that figure. There was some discussion of the 40 foot buffer required along Hinson Road and the need to eliminate one of the curb cuts due to the Ordinance requirement of one per every 300 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for deferral, as requested by the Applicant, was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 8 NAME: McCrary "Short-form" PRD (Z-5108) LOCATION: 1401 Pulaski DEVELOPER: Carlton McCrary 1314 Spring Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 562-0088, 374-8669 ENGINEER: Bob Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 0.16 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "C -3" to PRD PROPOSED USE: Single family residence /research and development A. Proposal /Request 1. For PRD approval of restoration and conversion of a 3,300 square feet old firehouse structure into a single family residence for the developer. 2. Five parking spaces will be provided and the two access points will remain. 3. Approximately 40 percent of the downstairs space in the garage area may be used for further research and development of Tag-a-long Stroller, invention of the applicant. 4. Major components of restoration are targeted for completion within 120 days of approval. B. Engineering Comments None C. Issues/Legal/Technical/Design None November 15, 1988 Item No. 8 (Continued) D. Analysis The applicant is requesting to reuse an old, abandoned City firehouse for his own residence. Staff has received calls from the residents of the area who are concerned about the "research and development" aspect of this proposal. They seem suspicious of this component of the project. The applicant is reminded that no use other than those stated will be allowed. In his statement of submission, he explains that this project is little more than a hobby and does not generate traffic, a labor force, or any manufacturing. The research and development consists of trying new wheels, a different belt, a change of cloth, etc. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was discussed as passed to the Commission. No issues were found. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 9 NAME: Generic Apothecary "Short- form" PRD (Z -5109) LOCATION: 4316 West Markham DEVELOPER: Sam Strauss & Bruce Leasure 200 W. Capitol, Rm. 1118 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 375-0629 ENGINEER: Roark, Perkins & Kennedy 713 West 2nd Little Rock, AR AREA: 0.14 acre NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: "O-3" PROPOSED USE: Apothecary A. Proposal /Request 1. For use of an existing structure of 2,448 square feet as an office use (1,248 square feet) and an apothecary (1,200 feet). 2. Parking will consist of 8 spaces. 3. A drive -up window on the east will be served by a 9.6 foot drive. Traffic will exit from this drive onto a rear alley. 4. A franchise is requested to park on 34.5 feet of West Markham Street right-of-way. B Development Statistics Total area = 2,448 square feet Pharmacy sales .......... 200 square feet Pharmacy inventory or work area.......... 300 square feet Office, storage, h a I l , restroom...... 700 square feet Total ............ 1,200 square feet Existing office area..1,248 square feet November 15, 1988 Item No. 9 (Continued) C. Issues / Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Discussion of franchise request. 2. Discussion of apothecary versus pharmacy uses -- indicate apothecary on plan. D. Analysis The applicant has requested to convert property that is currently vacant into use as an office and apothecary, which means that only drug or medicinal items will be sold, versus a pharmacy where a wide-range of merchandise is available for purchase. The applicant has explained that his request for a franchise would not cause any change in the existing situation; however, no record of a parking franchise with the City could be found, if it does exist. There will be no impact or change on the existing parking space and traffic patterns. The current Land Use Plan for the area designates this site for office use. Staff is supportive of this usage due to the existing commercial uses located east and west of this site. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The comments were discussed with the Applicants. They agreed that they would include only prescription medicines and items like bandaids and alcohol. PLANNING COMMISSION-ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Applicants were present. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 abstentions (Schlereth and Perkins) and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 10 NAME: Storage World Amended PCD LOCATION: 8500 Cunningham Lake Road DEVELOPER: Storage World 8500 Cunningham Lake Rd. Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 224-3370 ENGINEER: Bozeman and Associates 600 South McKinley, Suite 309 Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 664-3906 AREA: 3.85 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE: Mini-storage A. Proposal /Request 1. To revise an approved PCD project for warehouse storage by. addition of a covered boat /RV storage vehicle building in Phase I, and a new manager's apartment /office in Phase II. B. Development Statistics 1. Phase I Boat storage building... 6,796 square feet Drive ...................1,770 square feet 2. Phase II Manager's apartment..... 2,400 square feet Drive ................... 300 square feet November 15, 1988 Item No. 10 (Continued) 3. Existing Areas: Total Site ............ 167,800 square feet Street paving......... 5,840 square feet Drives ................ 63,250 square feet Grass ................. 40,360 square feet Buildings - ground floor 58,350 square feet Buildings - second floor 24,500 square feet C. Engineering Comments Conformance to Storm Water Detention may be required. Street improvements are in place, but presently no sidewalk exists. Parts of this site are in the 100 -year floodplain and minimum floor heights elevation will apply. D. Issues /Discussions /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Discussion of the flood /elevation issue. E. Analysis In his letter of submission, the applicant stated that a large front yard setback was required due to the 100-year flood elevation. The Corps of Engineers have recently made revisions in the 100-year floodplain which will permit use of this area. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was discussed. The Applicant stated that he would like to correct an existing problem involving undedicated right -of -way at Cunningham Lake Road. It was determined that no floodway elevations were required on open storage if the manager's apartment is located one foot above the elevation. November 15, 1988 Item No. 10 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) Mr. Ralph Bozeman, an architect, owner and developer of the project, represented the application. Several concerned residents of the neighborhood adjacent on the east were in attendance. Mr. W. Barnwell of 405 Brook Park Drive was concerned that the building of a wall on this property would increase the possibility of flooding due to the forcing or redirection of water back into the street. He stated that the area has flooded on several occasions since the Corps of Engineers' revision of the floodplain boundaries including December of 1987. Mr. Bozeman assured him that the water would be routed back toward the project property. Mr. Jerry Gardner of the City Engineer's staff addressed the floodplain and floodway issues. He explained that the area was in the floodway but that a study done by the Corps of Engineers changed the boundaries to the other side of Cunningham Lake Road (south side). The habitable portion would not flood. Mr. Bozeman added that the portion that looded in 1987 was not the area referred to by Mr. Barnwell. Mr. Frank Pichico submitted a letter from the neighborhood that stated opposition to the development. He felt that the reason flooding had not occurred on the Storage World Site was because it was filled and built upon land with elevations above the surrounding houses. Mr. Gardner explained that the way he interpreted the floodway and floodplain maps as prepared by the Corps indicated that no flooding would occur. He further indicated that the etention Ordinance would take care of any additional runoff that will occur. The Commission felt that Mr. Pichico had a very legitimate concern regarding details of the proposal to handle the potential runoff. Mr. Bozeman explained that all of the water would come through curbs and gutters on the perimeter of his site that would channel the water onto his site and then to the proper direction. Mr. Gardner explained that the Detention Ordinance only covered the proposed addition, not previous proposals or construction. After additional discussion, a motion for approval was made and passed subject to the applicant's compliance with the Detention Ordinance. The vote on the motion: 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). November 15, 1988 Item No . 11 NAME: Gray & Alford "Short- form" PCD (Z -5110) LOCATION: South side of Baseline Road, west of Dailey Drive DEVELOPER: Frost & Company 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-9241 ENGINEER: Black, Corley & Associates 218 West Sevier Benton, AR 72015 Phone: 778-7686/847-2912 (LR) AREA: 2.22 acres NO. OF LOTS 1 FT. OF NEW ST. 0 PROPOSED ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USE Laundrymat, cleaners, office and carwash A. Proposal /Req.uest 1. For approval of a 2.22 acre PCD development consisting of an upscale laundrymat /dry cleaning business, a combination automatic and self-serve carwash, and an office. 2. To phase the project accordingly: Phase I - laundrymat /dry cleaners and the combination automatic /self-serve carwash. Phase II - office building to be built only when pre - building lease efforts provide at least 75 percent occupancy. B. Development Statistics 1. Building BuiIding Type Gross BuiIding Area A Laundrymat 4,400 sq. ft. B Carwash 3,936 sq. ft. C Dry Shed 2,560 sq. ft. D Of f ice 6,000 sq. f t . Total 16,896 sq. ft. November 15, 1988 Item No. 11 (Continued) 2. Total site area.... 96,834.57 sq. ft. (2.22 acres) Total enclosed building area .... 10,944 sq. ft. Total planted area.20,555 ± sq. ft. Total paved area ... 76,279 ± sq. ft. Total parking spaces ... 50 C. Engineering Comments Additional right -of -way on Baseline is required to meet Master Street Plan requirements of 110 foot. Conformance to Storm Water Detention Ordinance is required. D. Issues /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Contrary to Land Use Plan. 2. Inadequate amount of green area. 3. Inappropriate use mix. E. Analysis This property is bordered on the east by vacant land zoned "0-3," and by a trailer park; to the south by vacant land zoned residential; to the north by Baseline Road; and to the west by residential. The applicants feel that these uses are appropriate for the area since many of the area's nearby residents are of lower and lower- middle income and live in rental properties having neither washers /dryers or adequate drives and room for residents to wash their cars at home. The units also do not have garages, so cars are parked outside, subject to dirt, increases the need for adequate wash facilities. Staff is very opposed to the project due to the uses proposed, and a fear that this will set a precedent for the strip- zoning of Baseline Road. Staff views this as spot- zoning. The site is bordered by various residential uses, on the east, southwest and north. The proposal does not comply with the Geyer Springs West Plan and the ratio of impervious surfaces to green area is approximately 95 percent to 5 percent. Staff feels that more green November 15, 1988 Item No. 11 (Continued) area is needed. Staff is opposed to the office building located beside the carwash. It provides a poor use relationship. F. Staff Recommendation Denial, as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Applicant agreed to delete the office building entirely. Staff felt that the remaining issue would still be land use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Staff offered its recommendation which was denial of the project based upon the proposal's departure from the approved Land Use Plan, the potential for strip commercial development or spot zoning, and the potential for adverse impacts on the adjoining residential area to the south and east. Staff stated that previous proposals for commercial had been withdrawn or denied. Mr. Gary Gray, one of the developers, represented the project. He stated that his plans now included the deletion of the office use previously proposed on the south end of the tract, and the construction of a ten foot brick wall along the area abutting the trailer park. He felt that he had responded to the Staff's comments by modifying the proposed right -of -way to provide a total of 110 feet, eliminating the office use and adding 30 percent of green space overall as compared to the original 5 percent. He felt that the use as proposed was compatible with the existing uses in the Baseline area and the new City complex planned across Dailey Drive to the east. Chairman David Jones questioned Commissioner John McDaniel regarding his feelings on this area. Mr. McDaniel defined the area as one of change with people moving out and selling their residential properties. He further stated he viewed the area as one with only two single family homes remaining. Commissioner Schlereth felt that over the years several proposals had been submitted on this property indicating that various developers were actively pursuing the development of this property. He further stated that if the November 15, 1988 Item No. 11 (Continued) property could have been developed as office use as reflected on the plan, it would have done so previously. Thus, it was not realistic to expect an office use on this property. Commissioner Riddick then offered what he stated were mild disagreements with the previous statements. He felt that the area was changing but not so rapidly as to prohibit changes for office development. After additional discussion, a motion was made a passed for approval of the application as amended by the applicant but with instruction that the wall along the east property line adjacent to the mobile homes be limited to 8 feet in height. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, 0 absent. Reasons for Planning Commission Action: 1. The site is in an area of transition due to the widening of Baseline Road to four lanes. 2. A PCD was previously approved for the subject property and the adjoining tract to the east. 3. The applicant submitted a revised plan providing for elimination of an office building, more landscaped area, and fencing to protect adjacent mobile homes. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 Name: Buchanan Drive duplex Conditional Use Permit (Z-5100) Location: The southwest corner of "F" Street and Buchanan Drive. Owner /Applicant: Jack O. and Ethelyne T. Williams Proposal: To relocate an existing 1,718 square feet duplex to this site and construct three paved parking spaces on 0.18 plus or minus acres of land that is zoned "R-3." Ordinance Design Standards: 1. Site Location Adjacent to two residential streets, "F" Street and Buchanan Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The site is abutted by single family to the north, south and east and vacant land located to the west. The site is situated above the grade of the intersection. The Staff perceives no adverse impact on the surrounding area due to the proposed land use. 3. On -Site Drive and Parking The proposal contains one access drive onto "F" Street and three paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing to use the existing trees and shrubbery as landscaping. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 (Continued) 5. Analysis The Staff feels that the proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding area. The only concern that the Staff has is with the proposed parking layout. The applicant needs to re- design the parking area to include an area large enough to accommodate backing movements so that automobiles have the necessary room to back out of their spaces and head onto "F" Street. 6. City Engineer Comments None 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the applicant submitting a revised site plan as described in the analysis section. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with Staff's recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The Staff stated that they had received the revised site plan and recommended approval of the project. Staff also stated that they had received a couple of calls as well as letters from Mr. John R. Talburt and Mrs. William L. Overton objecting to the proposal. In addition, Staff stated that they had received questions about the ownership of the subject property and had reviewed, along with the City Attorney, a Warranty Deed and Title Insurance which satisfied any ownership questions. Mrs. Celeste Weedman was present and spoke against the proposal due to the potential traffic problems it might create. The Commission then voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by the Staff. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 Name: Highway 10 Daycare Conditional Use Permit (Z-5106) Location: The south side of Highway 10 just east of Ives Street Owner/AppIicant: Rose N. Bickerstaff /Laurnetta R. Bickerstaff Proposal: To reconstruct and convert an existing 2800 square feet building to a daycare center (45 child capacity) and to pave a drop -off and parking area (13 spaces) on 0.30 + acres of land that is zoned "R-2." Ordinance Design Standards: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street (Highway 10). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is abutted by single family uses located on the north, east and west. The property located to the south is vacant. The proposed use, properly sized (capacity), located on an arterial street should be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The applicant has proposed 13 parking spaces with access to be taken from Highway 10. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing a privacy fence to be constructed along the sides of the building and along the rear property line to enclose the playground area. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 (Continued) 5. Analysis The Staff feels that a daycare use is potentially compatible with the surrounding area. The Staff does feel that the proposed capacity is excessive. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan which is shown on the survey drawing and includes a proper parking layout and drop -off area. The properly drawn parking and drop -off area will dictate the proper capacity for the daycare center. The revised drawing should also show the location of the proposed screening fence. 6. City Engineer Comments None 7 Staff Recommendation The Staff reserves its recommendation pending the submittal of a revised site plan as outlined in the analysis section. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The Staff stated that they had received a letter requesting deferral of the item until the January 3, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The applicant was not present. The Commission voted 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to defer the application as requested by the applicant until the January 3, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 Name: Cellular One Conditional Use Permit (Z-5112) Location: The northwest corner of Shackleford Road and West Markham Street (108 North Shackleford Road) Owner Applicant: Betty, John and Joe Nichols /Ralph Bozeman Proposal: To convert 7,000 square feet of an existing office building to office use and two service bays (4 car capacity) to allow for the installation of cellular telephone equipment on 3.2 + acres of land that is zoned "C-3." Ordinance Design Standards: 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street (West Markham Street), a collector street (North Shackleford Road), and a residential street (Shackleford Drive). 2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood The proposed use will be contained within an existing building on 3.2 acres of land that is zoned "C-3." The property is abutted by commercial uses located to the south and east, office to the north, and vacant land to the west. The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The site contains two existing access drives onto Shackleford Drive and 159 parking spaces (includes 6 handicapped spaces). 4. Screeninp and Buffers The site contains existing landscaping. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 (Continued) 5. Analysis The Staff feels that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. All off-site improvements are in place. The Staff does not foresee any problems with this proposal. 6. City Engineer Comments None 7. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission votes 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent to approve the application as recommended by the Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 Name: Pleasant Valley Living Center Site Plan Review (Z-5107) Location: The south side of Hinson Road approximately 800 feet east of Napa Valley Road. Owner /Applicant: Southern Key Investments /Doug Walsh Proposal: To construct a one -story 97 bed nursing home facility (30,240 square feet) and provide a total of 38 paved parking spaces on 2.4683 acres of land that is zoned "O-2.” ANALYSIS The site plan generally meets the requirements under the "O-2" district. There are, however, some serious deficiencies that need to be addressed. Parking requirements for a nursing home are one space per bed resulting in a deficiency of 59 spaces for this project. In addition, the site plan needs to show: (1) proposed landscape areas; (2) a minimum 20 feet (width) paved access drive; (3) a 40 foot buffer and a 6 foot screening fence along the south property line (as required by the Subdivision Ordinance); and (4) dumpster location. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS See comments for item no. 1 (Pleasant Valley Living Center Addition). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that contains adequate parking, a minimum 20 foot wide access drive, landscape areas, 40 foot buffer and 6 foot screening fence along the south property line, and dumpster location; and (2) comply with preliminary and final plat requirements. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No.. 15 (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with Staff recommendations with the exception of parking. The applicant stated that the one parking space per bed requirement was excessive based on their experience, but they would include additional parking on a revised site plan. The Staff stated that the application will require two variances from the Zoning Ordinance requirements which the Planning Commission can grant. The variances were: (1) from a minimum 200 feet frontage on a public boundary street; and (2) from a parking requirement of one parking space per bed. The Staff also stated that the applicant should not construct a gate across the private access drive and that they would be required to contract with the Water Works for the maintenance of fire hydrant facilities. The applicant agreed to comply. Finally, the Staff stated that the applicant should contact the Fire Department to satisfy any potential access issues and to provide proof that all utilities can be provided to the site. The Wastewater Utility stated that a sewer main extension would be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Staff stated that they had received the revised site plan that would require four ordinance waivers. Two requests were for variances from the Zoning Ordinance and they were: (1) 200 feet minimum frontage on a public boundary street; and (2) one space for every 2.55 beds rather than the required one space for one bed. The two variances from the Subdivision Ordinance were: (1) deletion of the six feet screen fence; and (2) allowing an intrusion into the fifteen feet undisturbed area of the forty foot buffer for a turnaround area. Staff further stated that they recommended approval of all the waivers and that they had received information on parking required by the State (one space per five beds). A discussion ensued about the proper amount of parking. The Commission stated and the applicant agreed to provide 42 paved parking spaces on-site. The applicant stated that the property owner would cooperate on the platting, access, allowing utility easements to their site, and sharing parking on the existing adjacent parking area (located to the north). The applicant agreed to submit a November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 (Continued revised site plan showing the additional parking and delineating the forty foot buffer area. The Commission then voted 11 ayes to approve the application as recommended by the Staff and agreed to by the applicant. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 Name: Hope Site Plan Review (Z-5113-A) Location: The south side of Community Lane, west of Community Road. Owner /Applicant: Larry and Rita Hope /Danny Ashley Proposal: To rezone 0.76 acres of land from "R-2" to "R-7A" and obtain site plan approval in order to place a 728 square feet manufactured home (single-wide). ANALYSIS The proposed unit and its placement appear to be compatible with the surrounding area. The only conventional single family structure is located adjacent to the east and fronts Community Lane. The applicant needs to provide the Staff with proof that the unit meets the City's codes (constructed after June 15, 1976) and needs to state agreement to comply with the following provisions: (1) removal of all transport features; (2) provide permanent foundation and underpinning. The applicant will also be required to dedicate additional right -of -way on Community Lane as required (right-of-way to be dedicated in conjunction with rezoning). CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS Dedicate any additional necessary right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) provide proof of date of manufacturer of the unit; (2) provide permanent underpinning and remove all transport features of and to the unit; and (3) dedicate any additional necessary right-of-way on Community Lane. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 (Continued) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with Staff recommendations. The Staff stated that they had received proof that the manufactured home met Ordinance requirements. There were no unresolved issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 11 ayes to approve the application as recommended by the Staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. November 15, 1988 Item No. 16a (Z-5113) Owner: Larry and Rita Hope Applicant: Larry Hope by Danny Ashley Location: 3829 Community Lane Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "R-7A" Purpose: Mobile home on a single lot Size: 0.75 acres Existing Vacant Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Mobile home park, Zoned "R-2" South - Mobile home park, Zoned "R-2" East - Single family, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "I-2" STAFF ANALYSIS: The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone the site from "R-2" to "R-7A" to allow a single -wide manufactured home. (Approval of a site plan is also necessary for the "R-7A" district.) The lot is currently vacant, but has been used for a mobile home in the past. Community Lane is only one block long and terminates at the western boundary of the property under consideration. Zoning in the area is "R-2" with the exception of an "I-2" area to the west and north. Land use is exclusively residential with a mix of single family and established mobile home parks. The site abuts a mobile home park to the south and there is another park across Community Lane. Other mobile home parks in the area are located south of Burris Lane and east of Community Road. Staff's position is that the proposal is a reasonable option for the lot and supports the necessary "R-7A" reclassification. The use is compatible with the area and should not impact any of the surrounding properties. (The site plan review is Item No. 16, Z-5113-A, on this agenda.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the "R-7A" request as filed. November 15, 1988 Item No. 16a (Z-5113) (Continued ) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The applicant was present. There were no objectors and the item was placed on the consent agenda. A motion was made to recommend approval of the "R-7A" as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS I tem No. 17 Name: Dillard's Site Plan Review (Z-5098-A) Location: North of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Cantrell Road Owner/Applicant: Dillard's /Flake and Company, Ron Tabor Proposal: To construct a four to six story office building (112,000 square feet to 168,000 square feet) and 500 initial parking spaces (57 additional future spaces) on 17.5 acres of land (13.5 are buildable) that is zoned "R-5," "O-3," "I-2" and "C-3" (to be rezoned to "O-2"). ANALYSIS The proposed plan meets ordinance requirements with regards to height, site size and parking. The approval of the site plan is, however, contingent upon the applicant: closing all streets and alleys within the site; rezoning the site to "O-2"; and filing a one-lot final plat to remove all existing lot lines and to dedicate any necessary right-of- way and to establish the appropriate building lines. The site plan also needs to be revised to include: (1) dimensions of all proposed structures (with setbacks), access drives and interior drives; (2) a 6 foot screening fence along the entire eastern property line to screen the parking area from the adjacent multifamily structure; (3) a 25 foot landscape buffer along the entire frontage of Cantrell Road; (4) changing note no. 1 on the site plan to show four to six story office building (112,00 square feet to 168,000 square feet); and (5) location of the future parking deck. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS The proposed traffic signal is desired but will have to meet warrants prior to its installation. This is an Arkansas Highway Department policy. The private street that intersects Cantrell Road on the west end of this tract should be a dedicated public right-of-way for at least November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 (Continued) 150 feet north of Cantrell Road. The geometric design at the main entrance (easternmost) will need to be corrected to provide an adequate acceleration lane. The entrance to the property immediately west of the westernmost drive (Southland Corporation) must be redesigned to provide for sufficient left-turn storage lane for southbound traffic. The existing geometrics on this intersection are unacceptable. The site will also require conformance to Storm Water Detention and Excavation Ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval provided: (1) the property is properly rezoned and all streets and alleys are closed as necessary; (2) a one - lot final plat is filed as previously outlined; (3) the applicant submits a revised site plan as outlined in the Analysis items 1 through 5; and (4) the applicant agrees to comply with City Engineering requirements as previously outlined. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and generally agreed to comply with Staff recommendations. There was some confusion as to the meaning of the City Engineer's comment regarding the easternmost drive. The applicant stated that he would meet with the City Engineer to clarify the issue. The Staff stated that an additional 15 feet of right-of-way will need to be dedicated to meet Master Street Plan requirements on Cantrell Road and that the sign proposed on the site plan would be required to meet the City's Sign Ordinance requirements. The applicant also stated that they were going to add the Southland property (located adjacent to the west) to the site and that the site plan was not yet exactly fixed. The Staff stated that once all the major elements have been pinned down on the site plan, any future changes could possibly handled at the Staff level. Finally, the Staff stated that any approval of adjacent property to the site plan would be subject to its being rezoned "O-2." The Wastewater Utility stated that all easements will remain until relocations are complete. 7 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 (Continued) ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON D I LLARD' S SITE PLAN REVIEW, NOVEMBER 15, 1988 The Staff has received a letter, a traffic study, and a revised site plan. The revised site plan does not, however, address all the specific design concerns as previously outlined. It has become clear that the applicant is attempting to tie down the specific access plan through a "conceptual" site plan. Although the approach is somewhat unorthodox, the Staff feels that can succeed. The Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the revised "conceptual" plan provided: (1) the applicant agrees to comply with all detention, excavation, landscape, sign and zoning ordinance requirements; (2) the property is successfully rezoned; (3) all streets and alleys are successfully closed; (4) a one lot final plat is filed dedicating the necessary right - of-way as outlined in the analysis section of the agenda; (5) the City Engineer is satisfied with the revised street and access plan; and (6) the property located to the west is included in the future site plan. Once the applicant has agreed to and completed all the outlined procedures, the Staff will review the "final" site plan for specific compliance. If, for any reason, the Staff and the applicant cannot reach complete agreement, the project will be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the addendum to the Staff's recommendation. Carole and Phillip McCorkle of 129 Riverside Drive were present and objected to the project, primarily due to the historical significance that would be lost as a result of this project. They also objected to a potentially dangerous access problem that would exist. The Commission became concerned about the implication of what the Staff was recommending regarding an approval of a "conceptual" site plan. They also felt that an approval in this manner might be precedent setting and perceived as "special dispensation." A lengthy discussion ensued. A motion was made to approve the revised site plan as submitted and as recommended by the Staff in its "Addendum to the Staff's Recommendations" Items 1 through 6 subject to the applicant and Staff bring the site plan back 3 November 15, 1988 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 (Continued) to the Commission for further review if the site plan is modified in such a way as not to meet the requirements as outlined in Section 36 -132 of the Code of Ordinances. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 November 15, 1988 Item No. 18 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Sibley Hole Road Abandonment Location: Southeast corner of I-430 and Stagecoach Road, Exit #1 Owner /Applicant: Scott Smith Request: The request is to abandon that portion of Sibley Hole Road, approximately 850 feet in length, lying north of the center line of Fouche Creek and parallel to I-430. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way Records indicate that there are no public needs for this right-of-way. 2 Master Street Plan From the review of the Master Street Plan, no issues exist pertaining to this request for abandonment. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets There exists no apparent need for this abandonment, presently or in the future, to the adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain The requested portion of right-of-way to be abandoned is gravel with no curb or gutter in place. 5. Development Potential The only developmental potential expressed to Staff is to make this abandonment part of Birnam Wood Nursery. November 15, 1988 Item No. 18 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect To the south of this site is a heavily wooded area; west is Interstate 430; north are commercial uses; and south, mature vegetation. 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing, no neighborhood positions have been voiced to Staff. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Four of the five utility companies have requested to retain the right to the existing or future easements located within this portion of right-of- way to be abandoned. 9. Reversionary Rights The reversionary rights will be retained by the applicant. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this section of right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the right-of-way abandonment subject to the utility comments being included in the Abandonment Order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) Mr. Ted Goodless spoke on behalf of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The applicant for the abandonment was in attendance. Mr. Goodless asked the Commission to grant the approval subject to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation retaining their rights to the right -of -way if the City ever needs to reopen that portion of Sibley Hole Road for any reason. A motion to that effect including Staff's recommendation was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. November 15, 1988 It em No. 19 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Riverside Drive Abandonment Location: North of Cantrell Road running the contour of east to west. Owner /Applicant: FGS Partnership Request: The request is to abandon all of Riverside Drive located in Block 361, Original City of Little Rock, Arkansas; River Side Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and Stillman & Buchanan's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There exists no public need for this right-of-way abandonment unless the development plans for the surrounding properties does not materialize. If for some reason this occurs and the surrounding properties are not acquired, the need will exist. 2. Master Street Plan There are no issues associated with this request for abandonment in the Master Street Plan. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets No needs exist for this right-of-way to the adjacent streets except for High, which the applicant is also requesting abandonment. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain This portion of right-of-way is open to traffic and paved. The eastern portion appears to have some curb and gutter whereas the western portion does not indicate any exists. November 15, 1988 Item No. 19 (Continued) 5. Development Potential The development potential expressed to Staff is for this abandonment to become part of the office complex for Dillard's Department Store. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Presently surrounding this right-of-way, on the north, east, and part of the south are residential uses. To the west and a portion of the south are commercial uses; Southland Building Materials, Brake Specialists Automotive Repair, and Little Rock Marina. Located along the northern property line is the Arkansas River. Cantrell Road is a four lane State highway located to the South. There will not be any affect on the surrounding properties unless the redevelopment plans for this area do not materialize. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood positions have been voiced to Staff as of this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities In accordance with the rights extended to the utility companies, several have requested that their rights be retained regarding either ingress and egress, the possible need to relocated any existing easements and providing of any future easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will revert back to the applicant 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this segment of right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. November 15, 1988 Item No. 19 (Continued) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the right-of-way abandonment subject to the utility rights being retained in the Abandonment Order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the right-of-way abandonment subject to Staff's recommendation by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant is advised that the requirement of a one lot final plat must be met. November 15, 1988 Item No. 20 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: High Street Abandonment Location: All of High located north of Cantrell Road running north and south. Owner /Applicant: FGS Partnership Request: The request is to abandon all of High Street located in Stillman & Buchanan's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There exists no public need for this right-of-way abandonment unless the development plans for the surrounding properties does not materialize. if for some reason this occurs and the surrounding properties are not acquired, the need will exist. 2. Master Street Plan From the review of the Master Street Plan, no issues exist regarding the request to abandon this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets There does exist a need for this right-of-way to access Riverside Drive from the north, but the applicant has requested for Riverside Drive to be abandoned. If Riverside Drive is approved, no needs exist. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain High Street is a paved right-of-way with no gutter existing. One curb cut is present which is off Cantrell Road. 5. Development Potential The agent for the applicant has stated that this abandonment will become part of the office development of Dillard's Department Store. November 15, 1988 Item No. 20 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect West of this site is Southland Building Materials and the Little Rock Marina. North is the Arkansas River and residential uses. South is Cantrell Road, and four -lane State highway. Commercial and residential uses front this highway. Located east are other commercial and residential uses. The effect of this proposed abandonment on the neighborhood could be major if the property west of the site (Southland Building Material) is not a part of the office development. The major access to this property could be closed. 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing, no neighborhood positions have been voiced to Staff regarding the right-of-way abandonment. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities In accordance with the rights extended to the utility companies, several have requested that their rights be retained regarding either ingress and egress, the possible need to relocated any existing easements, and providing of any future easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will be extended back to the applicant. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this segment of right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the right-of-way abandonment subject to the utility comments being made a part of the Abandonment Order as well as the purchase of the property to the west being purchased as part of the development proposal. November 15, 1988 Item No.- 20 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the right-of-way abandonment subject to Staff's recommendation by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant is advised that the requirement of a one lot final plat must be met. November 15, 1988 Item No. 21 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Alley Closure - River Side Park Addition Location: All the alley lying between Lots 8 to 19, and Lots 21 to 27, River Side Park Addition. Owner /Applicant: FGS Limited Partnership Request: To abandon that portion of a 12 foot alley approximately 5,880 square feet in area located in River Side Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There exists no public need for this right-of-way abandonment unless the development plan for the surrounding properties does not materialize. If for some reason this occurs and the surrounding properties are not acquired, the need will exist. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan revealed no issues involved with this requested abandonment. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets Since the applicant has requested closure of the adjacent streets, no needs exist for the alley. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain Physically closed but not on the record, this alley is heavily wooded running the contour from east to west. S. Development Potential The agent in charge stated the closure is needed as part of the new office complex for Dillard's Department Store. November 15, 1988 Item No. 21 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The alley is surrounded by residential uses. In close proximity to this alley is Cantrell Road, a four -lane State highway, with commercial and residential uses along the frontage. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood positions have been expressed to Staff as of this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities In accordance with the rights extended to the utility companies, several have requested that their rights be retained regarding either ingress and egress, the possible need to relocate any existing easements, and providing of any future easements. 9.. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend back to the applicant. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this unopened alley right-of- way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the alley abandonment subject to any utility requests being retained in the Abandonment Order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the alley abandonment subject to the Staff's recommendation by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant is advised that the requirement of a one lot final plat must be met. November 15, 1988 Item No. 22 Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Alley Closure - Stillman & Buchanan's Addition Location: All of the alley lying between Lots 7 to 11 and Lots 12 to 18 in Stillman & Buchanan's Addition Owner /Applicant: FGS Limited Partnership Request: The request is to abandon that portion of a 12 foot alley approximately 4,200 square feet in area in Stillman & Buchanan's Addition. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There exists no public need for this right-of-way abandonment unless the development plans for the surrounding properties do not materialize. If for some reason this occurs and the surrounding properties are not acquired, the need will exist. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan revealed no issues involved with this requested abandonment. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets Since there are pending requests to close the adjacent streets, no needs exist for this alley abandonment. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain The characteristics of the alley is heavily wooded. Physically the alley is closed but on the records the alley is open. 5. Development Potential All development potentials are centered around the office complex development for Dillard's Department Store. November 15, 1988 Item No. 22 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The alley is surrounded by residential uses. In close proximity to the alley is Cantrell Road, a four -lane State highway. Some commercial uses are located west and south of the site. No effect will exist to the neighborhood unless the redevelopment plans for the adjacent properties does not occur. 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing no neighborhood positions have been voiced to Staff. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities In accordance with the rights extended to the utility companies, several have requested that their rights be retained regarding either ingress and egress, the possible need to relocate any existing easements, and providing of any future easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend back to the applicant. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this unopened segment of alley right -of -way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the alley abandonment subject to any utility comments being retained in the Abandonment Order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the alley abandonment subject to the Staff's recommendation by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The applicant is advised that the requirement of a one lot final plat must be met. November 15, 1988 Item No. 23 - Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Alley Closure - Block 1, Cox's Addition Location: That portion of the alley running east and west between Garfield Street and University Avenue. Owner/Applicant: William D. Mathis, Unity Baptist Church, and Boyle Realty Company Request: To abandon the 10 foot alley in Block 1, Cox's Subdivision of Taylor and Brodeman's Subdivision to the City of Little Rock. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There exists no public need for the alley abandonment. 2. Master Street Plan Master Street Plans issues associated with this requested abandonment are none. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets There exists no need for this alley abandonment to the adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain Physically the alley is closed but on the records it is open. Mature vegetation covers the area to be abandoned. 5. Development Potential This pending alley closure will become a part of the redevelopment of the corner of University and 12th Streets (the southwest corner). November 15, 1988 Item No. 23 (Continued) 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Neighborhood land uses surrounding the alley are commercial and a church. In proximity to the site, are residential uses. North is West 12th Street, a minor arterial, and east is University Avenue, a principal arterial. No effects will be placed on the neighborhood with this right-of-way abandonment. 7. Neighborhood Position There have been no neighborhood positions voiced to Staff as of this writing, but no notice is required when abutting property owners are a part of the petition. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Four of the five utilities have voiced the right of retaining the alley as a utility easement with egress and ingress for present and future needs. 9. Reversionary Rights The reversionary rights of this abandonment will be divided equally among the three petitioners on the application. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this unopened alley right-of- way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the Real Estate Tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the alley abandonment subject to any utility comments being retained in the Abandonment Order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the alley abandonment subject to Staff's recommendation by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 24 Street Right-of-Way Abandonment Name: Alley closure - Block 171, John Barrow Addition Location: Lying along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 171, John Barrow Addition Owner /Applicant: Van Melson Request: To abandon a 10 foot alley lying east of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 171, John Barrow Addition. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way There are no public needs indicated with the request to close this alley. 2. Master Street Plan Upon review of the Master Street Plan, no issues were found to be associated with this request. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adjacent Streets The adjacent streets in this area have no needs associated with the abandonment of this alley. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain Site review indicated the alley to be physically closed though the records indicate it to be open. There is a commercial site to the east which uses the alley as part of its parking lot. The alley runs the contour north to south. 5. Development Potential If approved, the alley will become a permanent part of the commercial parking lot to the west. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The land use in the area of the alley closure request are commercial and residential. There will be no adverse effect to the neighborhood if the applicant's request is obtained. November 15, 1988 Item No. 24 (Continued) 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing, no neighborhood positions have been voiced to Staff. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Southwestern Bell Telephone requests that an easement in the right-of-way remain as a utility easement. 9. Reversionary Rights The petitioner for the alley abandonment will retain all reversionary rights. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment will eliminate the potential for the existence of the alley which could prove hazardous to both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the alley abandonment subject to any utility comments being retained in the abandonment order. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission approved the alley abandonment subject to Staff's recommendation by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 25 - Extraterritorial Request Cotton - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion was made and passed for withdrawal of this item from the agenda due to the fact that the Applicant was not the original violator. The motion was passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 26 Extraterritorial Request Bryant - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Applicant was present at the meeting. She was instructed to meet with Staff and file the appropriate information before the next Public Hearing. This item was deferred until January 3, 1989 by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 27 - Extraterritorial Request Diemer - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Applicant was not present. The item was deferred for further consideration at the January 3, 1989 Public Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. November 15, 1988 Item No. 28 - Extraterritorial Request Epps - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) The Planning Commission placed this matter on the consent agenda for deferral due to a lack of information. The deferral motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. EDITOR NOTE: This item was subsequently removed from the Planning Commission's agenda after discussion by Planning Staff and the City Manager's office resulted in a change in both enforcement and jurisdictional boundaries. November 15, 1988 Item No. 29 - Extraterritorial Request Briemer - Request for Waiver of Subdivision Requirements PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1988) A motion was made and passed to withdraw this item from the agenda due to the fact that the Applicant was not transferring title to this property to another person. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. DATC: MEMBER II-/3 � W.Riddick, III v V V J.Schlereth v I,/ µ J.McDaniel V ✓ v M.Miller v V V J.Nicholson t/ V V W.Rector I/ V v s.Leek V_ I-' // r, Whi1"fiel d v V V D.Jones V L/ // R.Collins J/ L, // ., J../ F.Perkins t/ )/ I,,,,-- � L � � r--� G C Q � � .!_ §_ §_ !_ Q N VOTE RECORD ITEM NUMBERS I :l 3 f s � 7 � q /0 II V V V V 1./ V V V V V v l/ 1,,,-V v V v v V trfJ IIB v� V V v I,/V v i,,) V I..--v V J/ l/ V � I/ J/V V '-v v V I/ ;/ v (/ v s/ ,.,,,-1,..../ V V I/ V ✓ v v V ....--V '-v V z--I,.../ V ✓{/ V v v V V I/ l/ v' V v I..,/ V -v V V V J/ J/' // l/ v' V V v V V V v v L,) J/ v L/ v V v V V v v V .,.L-,, v V '-' 1}13 v v @ NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTI\IN - /.2 /3 I� IS-/4,, 1,11 0 (/ z....-"' V v-V L..-V I./ v l/ V V V V V I/ V t,_.-V V V l,,, v V V" j/"' V V V v---v 1,...,-""" V"' V v 1..,,--" v l../ V V v v v i.--,-/l,,/' V v 1,,,/ V v V V Vfl V 1...-/ t.,./ V V V V L-V l/ V DATE /1/(s-/f'f I r MEMBER W.Riddick, III J.Schlereth J.McDaniel M.Miller J.Nicholson W.Rector S.Leek r.Whit-field D.Jones R.Collins F.Perkins 11 V v '-"' v v I...--"" v ✓ A- V /! fl V V v V V V V V II-v v V ff v' v V v V fl-/1-- v V PLAN J"-:r NG C O M M I S S I O N v-t:lT E RECORD ITEM NUMBERS 2J JI jj l.23 �'i I� J�J1 2f ;J._ o/ V V V V l---V V v V V v V l/ l/ V v I...,/ V v 'v V i/ V V"' V "' ✓y' v' y I,/ V V v V v V � v V V V I/ V v ft-,4 V v I/ V v V v V v v' L---" v I/ V v L,,"' I,_.,l/ fl-,4 V 1.,,,/ V v .......1," I.,, t/ v i./ V V ✓✓ t/ i/ V V ✓v v V II-V fr V V V II-fr v V I/ V v V ""v V V V V I/ ✓AYE © NA�E A ADSENT �I\BSTI\IN -) ..... November 15, 1988 There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Date: Secretary Chairman