Loading...
pc_09 10 1985subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 10 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. III. Members Present: Commissioner J. Summerlin Commissioner J. Schlereth Commissioner R. Massie Commissioner B. Sipes Chairman Jerilyn Nicholson Commissioner W. Rector Commissioner W. Ketcher Commissioner D. Arnett Commissioner J.D. Jones Commissioner J. Clayton IV. Members Absent: Ida Boles V. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton SUM M ARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 Deferred Items: A.Pleasant Valley Park Retirement Center "Long-Form PRD"(Z-4482) B.Country Club Co rporation "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4479) Preliminary Plats/Replats: 1.Bonnette Addition, Lot 1 2.Burrow -Graham Commercial Subdivision 3.Hickory Creek Preliminary 3-A. Hickory Creek "PRD" Rezoning (Z-3754-E) Preliminary/Site Plan Review: 4.Ashley Square Shopping Center Planned Unit Development: 5.Seamon "Short-Form PRD" (Z-4522) 6.Majik Market -Highway 10 "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4483) 7.Barn Bedroom "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4484) Site Plan Review: 8.West Baseline Road Apartments 9.Countrywood Two 10.Village Green Apartments 11.I-430/630 Central Shopping Center 12.Arkansas Medical Society Building (Z-3689-E) Conditional Use/Site Plan Review: 13.Shackleford Road (Z-3901-A) Conditional Use Permit 14.Riley Drive (Z-3021-C) 15. Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind (Z-4526) 16.Goody ear (Z-4527) Building Line Waiver 17.Shell Super-Stop 18.B and S Rental (Lot 9 -Towne Oaks ) 19.Lot 2, Langston Acres 20.Wendy's Old-Fashioned Ham burgers - Cantrell Road 21.Wendy's Old-Fashioned Ham burgers - Rodney Parham Right-of-W ay Abandonment 22.Alley Closure -Alley and Block 341, Cherry'sSubdivision Other Matters 23.Pleasant Hills Total Living Community - Re vised SitePlan 24.Capitol and Valmar Street Re vised - Conditional UsePermit Subdivision 25.Kelton Brown Tri-Party Default 26.Floyd Fulkerson - Hinson Road Improvements 27.Jim Brown Replat September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Pleasant Valley Park Retirement Center "Long-Form PCD" (Z-4482) LOCATION: 10 acre tract on Hinson Loop/ Rainwood Road and 2.5 acre tract north of 10 acre tract, approx. 300' east of Napa Valley Drive DEVELOPER: Ewing Health Systems, Inc. 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 224-0207 ENGINEER: Manes, Castin, Massie and McGetrick, Inc. 2501 Willow Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: 758-1360 AREA: 12.5 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Existing - "MF-12" (10 acres) "O-2" (2.5 acres) Proposed - "PRD" PROPOSED USE: Retirement Village (residential cottages, apartments and convalescent center) A. Development Rationale 1. To provide a comprehensive continuing care retirement community serving the residential health care needs of the elderly. 2. To develop the southern portion of the site as multifamily detached dwelling units. B. Proposal 1. Quantitative Data: Parcel Growth Area ......... 12.435 Acres Street Right -of -Way ........ .455 Acres Setbacks ................... 1.156 Acres Retirement Housing Area .... 3.462 Acres September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued 2.Development Schedule (a)Phase I (Multifamily Detached Dwelling Units) 84 Units Located in 21 Detached Structures Each Structure Contains 4 Dwelling Units Bldg. Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg. Coverage Use 1-BR Units at 12 9,000 9,000 750 sq. ft. 2 BR Units at 72 68,400 68,400 750 sq. ft. Carports at 84 18,060 18,060 215 sq. ft. All Single Family (b)Phase II Bldg. Qty. Sq. Ft. Bldg. Use Coverage ( i ) Common Facilities 1 6,800 6,800 Food Preparation Dining Single Story (ii) Health Care Center 1 51,500 12,750 Total of 120 beds of nursing care. (These are divided into 96 two-bed units and 24 private bed units.) Support Services 4-Stories (iii) 1 60,000 10,000 Apt. Towers 53 Units with 39 1-BR Units and 14 2-BR Units Support Services 4-Stories September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued (c)Phase III Bldg. Bldg. Use Qty. Sq. Ft. Coverage ( i ) Apt. Towers 1 57,950 7,950 (Total of 53 apartments with 39 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units.) Support Services 6-Stories (ii) 4 3,000 3,000 Multifamily Detached 1-BR Units at 750 sq. ft. 2-BR Units at 12 11,400 11,400 950 sq. ft. Carports at 16 3.440 3.440 215 sq. ft. Total 289,059 150,800 3. Land scaping/Open Space -Includes greenbelt pedestrian path along both sides of collector street. Interior atriums in each unit for private use. Public open space has been maintained around each multifamily detached dwelling unit and combined into a major open space centrally located landsape pedestrian path. Open Space Private Space •••••••••••••••••••• 195 Acres Common Space •••••••••••••••••••• 8,973 Acres Total 9.168 Acres 4. Development Schedule Phase I - Construction begins Ch ristmas of 1985. Units constructed at market absorption rate. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A -Continued Phase II -Constr uction begins in summer of 1986, completed in late 1987. Phase III -Construction begins in late fall 1987, units constructed at market absor ption rate. C. Engineering Comments (1) Dedicate right-of-way and imp rove Rainwood Road to collector standards. (2) Submit internal drainage and detention plan. D. Analysis Staff was very much prohibited in its review of the item due the applicant's failure to comply with the site plan submission requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan ne eds to be properly detailed. Staff is also concerned that the plan appears to be quite dense. E. Staff Recommendation Staff defers recommendation until further information is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the item. The applicant submitted a more detailed site plan. The issues were identified as involving: (1) the proposed access/turning lane to Hinson Road: (2) a 6-foot fence and lands caped buffer on the west adjacent to the abutting residential: and (3) development on the various portions of the plan and how each relates to the density allowed in "MF-12" and "O-2." Water Works -The ea sement should be designated to be also for utilities. On-site fire line and hy drants will be required. Pro-rata charge applies. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Nooner, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The staff offered a specific recommendation on the application as follows: (1) that the 10 acre "MF-12" site be limited to that density with no multistory buildings, (2) that the "O2" site be limited to one multistory apartment building, 52 units total and the nursing home /restaurant annex, (3) that the basic design concept be retained. However, Mr. Bob Wickard, a nearby owner and developer, offered concerns about the project and his brief notice of the proposal. Mr. Nooner made a brief presentation and responded to the staff density analysis and recommendations. A general discussion followed resulting in a motion to defer the request to August 13, 1985. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-13-85) The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-29-85) The applicant was present, but stated that no further amendments had been made to the plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-10-85) Mr. Denny Nooner represented Ewing Health Systems, Inc. Updated statistics were submitted. Staff explained that they were still favorable to the developmental concept, but opposed to the overuse, multiple density and over density of the project on the land. Staff pointed out that the issues specifically involved the double use of the "O-2" parcel by apartments in the nursing home, not the density of the nursing home. Staff recommended that the "O-2" be limited to only multi-story, apartment and that the high -rise building be eliminated from the "MF-12," and that multifamily be the use on the "MF-12" portion of the tract. Mr. Nooner felt that removal of the concept used, would prohibit the whole project. He explained that the comprehensive plan for the project involved the entry of residents at age 72 in the cottages. As time progressed and these residents got older, they would move from the cottages to the high rises based on their physical abilities. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Several neighboring property owners were present. Ms. Shirley Merrit of 1811 Napa Valley and Mr. Ray Rainey of 1801 Napa Valley Drive were in attendance. Ms. Merrit was concerned about adequate buses and screening and the negative impact of high -rise buildings. Mr. Rainey requested information on the nature of the fence. Other residents were from the Pleasant Valley Subdivision. Mr. C.R. Warner of 559 Valley Club Circle stated opposing views on the intrusion of a high-rises in the area and stated concerns about traffic since a number of employees would also be involved. Dr. William L. Casey of 539 Valley Club Circle requested continuance of one-story commercial, and Mr. George Plastiras of 545 Valley Club Club Circle was also concerned about the height. Mr. Nooner felt that the high rises wouldn't be visible to the residents at all. He also felt that the use of the "PUD" review process allowed examination of the total concept, which makes the project less dense that it would be if rezoned only. Finally, a motion for approval was made and passed by a vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. FLOOR BUILDING BUILDING USE QTY. AREA COVERAGE PHASE I Multi-Family Detached Dwelling Units l BR units at 719 sq. ft./each 20 14,380 14,380 2 BR units at 1,095 sq. ft./each 60 65,700 65,060 80 80,080 80,080 PHASE I Apartment Tower 1 55,762 11,218 Total of 48 Apartments. These are divided into 32 1-bedroom units and 16 2-bedroom units. *Support services Five Stories PHASE II Health care center 1 44,020 11,636 Total of 120 beds of nursing care. These are divided into 96 2-bed units and 24 private bed units. *Support Services Four stories. FLOOR BUILDING BUILDING USE QTY. AREA COVERAGE PHASE III Multi-Family Detached Dwelling Units l BR units at 719 sg. ft./each 4 2,876 2,876 2 BR units at 1,095 sq. ft./each 8 8,760 8,760 12 11,636 11,636 PHASE III Apartment Tower 1 55,762 11,218 Total of 46 apartments. These are divided into 32 1-bedroom units and 16 2-bedroom units. *Support services. Five stories. TOTAL 247,260 125,788 Total Cottages 92 units Total Apartments 96 units Nursing Home Beds 120 units *Support services include the following for use of on-site residents only: Nursing Clinic Gift Shop Beauty/Barber Shop Mailroom Administrative Offies Reading Room Activity Room September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B NAME: Country Club Corporate Center "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4479) LOCATION: DEVELOPER: The Linkous Co. 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 224-1234 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 S. Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 4.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 9 FT. NEW ST.: 330 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Office The applicant requested that this item be deferred for 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-10-85) The Planning Commission responded to this owner's request by deferring the matter to August 13, 1985. The motion to defer was passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. A. Site History A portion of this site has been considered by the Commission for an office development in the past. B. Developmental Concept 1. To provide a high quality, aesthetically coordinated professional office setting for owner /tenants. 2. To achieve the high quality implied by the "O-2" zoning while addressing a market which requires lot sizes smaller than two acres. C. Proposal 1. The construction of nine office buildings on approximately 5.0 acres. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued 2. Project Data Building Size Height 1 10,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story 2 10,220 sq. ft. 2 -Story 3 9,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story 4 9,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story 5 4,800 sq. ft. 2 -Story 6 4,800 sq. ft. 2 -Story 7 7,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story 8 7,200 sq. ft. 2 -Story 9 5,600 sq. ft. 2 -Story Total 69,200 sq. ft. 3. Project Features /Amenities a. Improve Hinson Road to City specifications. This includes paving an additional lane and adding improvement such as gutters as sidewalks. b. Heavily landscaped private street: The main access to each lot will be by a 27' street in a 45' right-of-way. A 25' landscape setback will be required from the right-of-way. No parking will be allowed in the setback. C. Parking courts: Parking for each lot will be accommodated in parking courts which will be shielded from the street. d. Common Material and Colors: A palette of materials and colors will be selected from which all buildings will be constructed. e. Sidewalls: The building walls will extend onto the site to unify the various buildings into a coordinated whole. f. The continuance of a pattern of sloped roofs that has been established by developments to the east and west. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Analysis No problems of significance have been found. Parking exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. F. Staff Recommendation Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Engineering pointed out that the 27' street was acceptable, even though a 36' street is usually required in a commercial office subdivision. The applicant agreed to restrict the uses to "O-2" only. Engineering agreed to examine the relationship between Greenbriar Drive to the north and Country Club Circle. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant and his architect were present. Several concerned residents of the neighborhood were also in attendance. Their spokesperson was Mr. George Plastiras of 545 Valley Club Circle and the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association. He requested deferral based on several concerns: (1) The neighborhood was not knowledgeable enough about the project to ask questions. (2) Existing water problems in the neighborhood which could worsen. (3) Unfamiliarity with the proposed drainage plan. (4) Invasion of privacy from proposed two -story buildings. (5) Orientation of lighting and drives. (6) That setbacks be 50' or 70' as currently exist along Hinson Road. (7) Adequacy of screening. The applicant's architect explained the right-of-way would be dedicated for the construction of Hinson as an 80' street, the drainage would be approved by the City's engineers and that the building orientation could be modified and the drives could be internalized. A motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (8-29-85) Mr. Mike McQueen, the architect, reported that the owner was still trying to resolve the various issues regarding drainage, parking, setbacks and screening with the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for withdrawal was made by the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File 589 NAME: Bonnette Addition, Lot 1 Preliminary/Final LOCATION: West side of Sardis Road, 1/2 mile south of Alexander Road DEVELOPER: Floyd B. and Katherine Bonnette III 6701 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 ENGINEER: Sam Davis 5301 W. 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Phone: 664-0324 AREA: 10.008 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Wa iver fr om 5-acre maximum requirement for combined preliminary/final. A.Site History None. B.Existing Conditions This site is located in an area that is rural in character and composed mainly of single family homes. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat 10.008 acres into one lot for single family development. A waiver of the five-acre limit on combinedpreliminary/finals isrequested. D. Engineering Comments None E. Analysis Staff has no problem with the submission or the waiver request. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued F. Staff Recommendation Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He agreed to add the appropriate building lines. Sewer Comments - No sewer available; nearest main appears to be approximately 3,000' away. Water Main - An 8 -inch water main extension will be required to serve this property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 590 NAME: Burrow - Graham Commercial Subdivision LOCATION: Located approx. 1500' east of the intersection of Napa Valley and Mara Lynn Road DEVELOPER: Bill Rector 1501 N. University Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-7807 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner & Assoc. Inc. 201 S. Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 375-5321 AREA: 11.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW ST.: 200' Collector 900' Arterial ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial A. Site History None. B. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area where there is a mixture of multifamily and single family uses. The land is vacant with elevations ranging from 410' through 460'. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal to plat 11.2 acres into two commercial uses. This plat will dedicate the right -of -way necessary to build the north half of the Bowman Road extension. New streets include 200' as a collector and 900' as an arterial. The applicant has stated that detention storage for this plat will be accommodated on each lot as it is developed. The total anticipated storage volume for each tract is 0.5 acre feet, approximately. Also, Tract "A" is reserved as an unbuildable tract for signage and landscaping. No facility will be constructed on it for public or private use. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued D. Engineering Comments None. E. Analysis The plan should be revised to reflect the appropriate building lines. A street abandonment petition should be filed for the existing portion of Mara Lynn. Staff is concerned by the applicant's plans for Tract "A." Current Board policy does not allow freestanding off-site signs on lots by themselves. This is considered off-premise advertising. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Mr. Don Chambers represented the applicant. He agreed to add the appropriate building lines. Water Works - A 12-inch water main extension will be required. Existing facilities may need to be relocated. On -site fire lines and fire hydrants may be needed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 2 abstentions and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 202 -C NAME: Hickory Creek Preliminary LOCATION: Approx. 800' west of Portland, on the south side of Hinson DEVELOPER: Clint Boshears Suite 264 - Prospect Bldg. 1501 N. Univ. Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 663-6366 ENGINEER: Garver and Garver 12th and Battery P.O. Box C -50 Little Rock, AR 72203-0050 Phone: 376-3633 AREA: 64.2 acres NO. OF LOTS: 87 FT. NEW ST.: 7,240' ZONING: "PRD" to "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Private Street System A. Site History A few years ago, the Commission zoned this site "PRD" for a condominium development. The applicant has since received several extensions of the approval. B. Existinq Conditions This site is located in an area composed of single family residences. The land is vacant with portions lying in the floodway. C. Development Proposal This is a plan to subdivide 64.2 acres into 87 lots and 7,240' of new street. A private internal street system is planned for all lots, except 85, 86 and 87. These lots will be served from Hinson Road. A gate and guardhouse will be located at the entrance to the subdivision to limit access. The 200' wide floodway will be developed into a lake system. The lake will be excavated below the existing stream flow line, and the water surface will be near the elevation of the existing stream bed. The subdivision will be developed in four phases. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. All floodway revisions shall be in accordance with the City's Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance and FEMA requirements. Design shall be for 100-year fully developed upstream conditions. 12 Detention is required. 3. Hinson Road alignment shall be as previously agreed. See City Engineer for alignment. E. Analysis The plat should be revised to reflect appropriate building lines. A private street system is acceptable if a 45' public access easement is provided. The applicant has asked to move the phase line between Lots 12, 13, 74 and 75 so that it will be moved out of the intersection. Also, please explain who will maintain the private drive stubs in Phase IV. The fronting of Lots 85-87 on an arterial street is acceptable in this instance, since the applicant has no choice. Evidence of the buildable nature of the lots should be submitted when the alignment of Hinson Road is worked out. Points of access should be restricted to two curb cuts on a common lot line. Finally, the applicant should make sure that the parcel near the southwest corner of the project is not landlocked. Building lines should be added. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The owner and his engineer were present. They explained that: (1) the land-locked parcel was owned by Deltic Timber and they had no desire for access; (2) a property owners association will be responsible for maintenance and the Bill of Assurance will set out provisions for use; and (3) a revised plan reflecting on-site fire lines and building lines would be submitted. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted. During the agenda session, Mr. Joe White of Deltic Timber Company, an abutting property owner, submitted a letter in objection to the amount of private street proposed; however, he was not against the project. He was concerned that there were no through streets. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3-A NAME: Hickory Creek "PRD" Rezoning (Z-3754-E) LOCATION: Approx. 800' west of Portland, on the south side of Hinson Rd. DEVELOPER: Clint Boshears Suite 264 - Prospect Bldg. 1501 N. Univ. Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 663-6366 REQUEST: To rezone 64.2 acres from "PRD" to "R-2" PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (See Item 3 for details) A motion for approval of the rezoning was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - File No. 591 NAME: Ashley Square Shopping Center Preliminary /Site Plan LOCATION: NE Corner of Rodney Parham and Reservoir Road DEVELOPER: Ashley Associates 2649 Pike Avenue NLR, AR 72114 Phone: 758-7745 ENGINEER: Robert D. Holloway, Inc. 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72118 Phone: 851-3366 AREA: 11.93 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Site History Several projects on this site have been previously approved by the Commission. B. Proposal 1. Construction of a shopping center composed of retail and one restaurant use on 11.93 acres. 2. Development according to the following site statistics: Provided Structure Sq. Ft. Parking Clothing Store 24,050 120 Dept. Store 30,000 150 L.L. 1-5 98,300 311 Totals 152,350 581 3. Landscaping/Screening - A privacy fence will border the residential area to the east. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued 4. Phvsical Improvements (a) Additional property to accommodate a left turn lane on Reservoir Road is dedicated on the plat. On the site plan, it is indicated as a 240' transition from the north all the way to Rodney Parham Road. (b) The development will have a substantial fill on the west side of the Presbyterian residential area and a substantial cut slope on the north end of the property, which will require proper slope protection and erosion control as will be recommended in the final design by the architect. (c) Some in-lieu contributions for future construction of Reservoir Road will be made by a developer. C. Engineering Comments 1. Street, driveway, etc., dimensions shall be shown for review. 2. Dimensions for lane width shall be shown for Reservoir. 3. Detention required. 4. Boundary street requirements for Reservoir Road. 5. Traffic Engineer needs to be furnished Engineering data to determine if exit onto Rodney Parham has a safe sight distance. 6. Fire Department must sign off on access and no fire hydrants in back of building. D. Analysis This application involves the platting of unplatted acreage with dedication of additional right-of-way and site plan review of a multiple building site. In his proposal, the applicant has outlined how he wishes to develop the property. Due the physical nature of the site, he has proposed a certain amount of grading and site work. Also, there are plans for extensive street improvements, along with one of the structures being a restaurant which is a high traffic generator. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued Staff has a few concerns. The applicant has mentioned verbally that he would like for the additional physical improvements to be optional. Staff prefers that the applicant make a commitment at this stage indicating whether or not he plans to do the improvements. Also, he needs to pinpoint which structure is to house a restaurant. This would enable staff to check the parking, even though it appears to be adequate. There are no plans for buffering the multifamily to the north. Staff recommends the usual requirement and that the 6' fence be placed on top of the grade. Staff suggests that notice be sent to neighboring property owners. The Fire Chief must approve all drives. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and his engineer were present. He explained that development plans were not certain at this time so he needed flexibility in designating the restaurant uses. He felt that one or both of the smaller buildings on Reservoir Road would be a restaurant. Since he met the parking requirement, the Committee had no problem. He was advised to meet with Engineering and work out an agreement on the additional physical improvements and to notify property owners in the area. Water Works - A frontage charge of $2.50 per foot adjacent to Reservoir Road and an acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply. On -site fire lines and hydrants will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Mike Batie of the City Engineer's Office reported that an agreement had been reached for improvements on Reservoir Road. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - File No. 597 N1AMP- Seamon "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4522) LOCATION: SW Corner of Farris and Shadowlake DEVELOPER: Merlin Seamon 209 1/2 W. 2nd St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-6092 ENGINEER: Merlin Seamon 209 1/2 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-6092 AREA: 3 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PRD" PROPOSED USE: 8 Triplexes A. Site Histor This property has been platted as Lots 1-16, Block 4, Gibralter Heights, less and except Lots 2 and 3, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. B. Developmental Concept 1. The construction of rental units which will appeal primarily to senior citizens and the handicapped; however, tenants will not be limited to these groups. 2. To develop the property at a density that would be similar if developed as single family. 3. To design the units like single family residences and the color as earth tones in order that they blend into the wooded environment. 4. To preserve the natural beauty of the site. C. Proposal 1. The construction of 22 units and 8 triplex structures on three acres. 2. The replatting of 16 lots into one lot. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 3. Development Statistics (a) Unit No. Unit Type 24 2 (b) Parking provided consists of 36 off-street spaces. D. Engineering Comments 1. Detention required. 2. One north /south street to be left open. E. Analysis The applicant needs to submit a site plan on a certified survey and provide dimensions relating to the structures, between the structures and between structures and property lines. There is an existing right-of-way through the property. Streets are to be abandoned according to the Gibralter Heights Plan. A one lot final replat will be required because of the reduction in lots and right-of-way abandoment. The applicant is asked to reconsider the design of those stalls backing into the internal drive. A 6' board fence and appropriate screening will be required where adjacent to residential zoning. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan with added dimensions. He explained that the stalls were designed as they were since the internal drive was not a public street. Staff still felt that a safety factor was involved, especially at the entrance to the project. The applicant was asked to meet with the fire chief regarding their request of a larger cul-de-sac radius. Water Works - On-site fire lines and fire hydrants may be required. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present but had sent a letter to the staff requesting a 30-day deferral. Staff reported that the letter was sent within the required time period. Several residents of the neighborhood were in attendance. They were concerned about the applicant's proposal to close Farris Street. Mr. Roy Jones stated that the street was physically unopened but provided access to land that he owned. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 598 NAME: Majik Market - Highway 10 "Short -Form PCD" (Z-4483) LOCATION: South of Highway 10 at Southridge DEVELOPER: Munford, Inc. 324 W. Pershing NLR, AR 72214 APPLICANT: H. Bradley Walker Phone: 371-0808, 666-4316 ENGINEER: Mehlburger and Associates Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-5331 AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Convenience Store A. Subdivision Committee Review At the Subdivision Committee meeting, the chairman asked that a revised write-up be done on this item in a fashion similar to that used if the item was a proposed project. The revised review is as follows. Also, the applicant mentioned the possibility of in-lieu contributions on Highway 10. B. Site History This site was annexed to the City on May 2, 1978, with the existing use in place. There has been only a single request for rezoning the parcel to "C-3," which was ultimately rejected by the City Board. The applicant was Mr. Lou Schickel. C. Existinq Conditions The property fronts on Highway 10, which is a principal arterial requiring 100' of right-of-way and potential dedication from the site. Access to the site may be effected by the location of the property at a high volume intersection, which is projected for a traffic September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued signal. The existing curb cuts present a conflict with signalization. The Suburban Plan indicates neighborhood commercial at this location. Physically, the tract forms a unique configuration that abuts a hill mass to the south. It is estimated that 30 percent of the land is unbuildable due to grade. D. Development Proposal This is a request for "PCD" approval of an addition to a nonconforming use. The applicant has constructed a new canopy and gasoline pumps on an existing island at a convenient store that is located on an "R-2" single family site. They are located in an area established by a 40-foot building line. The canopy is located approximately 14 feet from the street, and the island is set back by 23.5 feet. E. Enqineerinq Comments No adverse comments. The applicant should specify plans for street improvements on Highway 10. F. Analysis Planning Commission review was prompted by several events. Initially, the applicant /owner proceeded without proper approvals to remove the existing tanks, pumps and canopy on the site. In the course of relocating these elements, the circumstances were brought to the attention of building permits. Over a period of two weeks, the owner and his attorney were advised of appropriate remedies that should proceed completion of the work. The owner and the contractor proceeded to finalize the erection of the pumps and canopy in spite of being directed to stop work. After completion, a period of two weeks passed before a request for a Planned Commercial District "PCD" was filed. The choice of a PUD was made by the Attorney for the owner. It has been noted that the site has unique topographical features that restrict the buildable areas so that options are very limited as to where the structure and related parking can be located. For this reason, staff feels that if the circumstances were different and if a proposal of this nature was presented on raw land, the use of the site for the existing use would be discouraged. On the other hand, September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued since the existing structure has been on the property since incorporation into the City, staff would have taken the design constraints into consideration if approached about the additions to the existing use. Other than physical features, several other problems have been found. Traffic flow to the site and within the project does not present an ideal situation. The location of the curbs is such that there is a straight shot into the Highway 10 and Walton Heights intersection. Internally, there is a conflict between some existing parking spaces and the proposed pump island which restricts maneuvering space. The canopy is located in the building setback area. Staff feels that more maneuvering space is needed within the site and that the intersection conflicts need to be minimized. The design needs to be reviewed and the reyised plan should be approved by the Traffic Engineer. Staff would suggest as possible solutions: (1) shifting the easternmost curb cut at least 30' to the east; (2) shifting the pump island to the east, reducing the size of the canopy and moving it to within 15' of the front property line; (3) revising layout of parking spaces at the southeasterly property line; and (4) requiring a final plat for permanent location of curb cuts and dedication of right-of-way. G. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the above comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was represented by attorney Bradley Walker. There were no objectors. Staff stated its suggestions for revision (see analysis). Mr. Jim Hathcock gave an overview of the events leading to the filing of this application. He explained that the building permit application indicated remodeling with no exterior work; therefore, his staff was unaware that expansion of the canopy and pumps was intended. Mr. Walker explained that his client had no dishonest intentions, and there was a breakdown in communication between the building permits clerk and the representative of the construction company. He explained further that in the process of September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued working out the present problems, the applicant had lost its nonconforming status, so a PCD was the only way to alleviate the problem. He felt that it was a hardship on this applicant to remove the pumps. He also had problems with the right-of-way dedication since the State Highway Department had no plans for the land to be dedicated. Mr. Walker also took consent to the dedication if his client would be allowed to keep the use of the island and pumps. Finally, a motion for approval of the existing plan was made and passed, subject to: (1) the right-of-way agreement, (2) in-lieu contribution and (3) one-lot final plat. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 592 NAME: The Barn Bedroom "Short-Form PCD" (Z-4484) LOCATION: 9812 I-30 DEVELOPER: George Irwin /C.J. Callamen c/o 1700 S. Spring Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 375-4249 ARCHITECT: John D. Jarvad 1700 S. Spring Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 375-4241 AREA: .74 acre NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to "PCD" PROPOSED USE: Industrial /Commercial A. Site History This area has been annexed to the City in recent years. B. Proposal 1. The extension of an existing store approximately 14' and the addition of a 50' x 40' warehouse. 2. Development will be as follows: Existing Store ............... 5,680 sq. ft. New Store Addition ............ 1,400 sq. ft. Total Retail 7,080 sq. ft. Existing Warehouse ........4,000 sq. ft. New Warehouse .... ............ 2,000 sq. ft. Total Warehouse 6,000 sq. ft. 3. Proposed parking is for 31 cars. C. Engineering Comments None. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued D. Analysis This application has been submitted for "PCD" review because of the applicant's desire to have a mixture of commercial and industrial uses on the site. There is currently no other zoning district to accommodate this. There has been a mixture of these two uses on the site, but they have been nonconforming. The store addition appears to have eliminated existing parking spaces. Only 31 spaces are proposed, though the requirement is for 32. The applicant should revise a site plan and add an additional parking space and a dimension on the rear setback. Staff requests that Engineering check the drainage proposal on the west of the site and Traffic provide comments concerning the three parking stalls near the easternmost entrance which back into a drive. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The main issue discussed involved the location of three parking stalls at the entrance. The applicant was advised to meet with Engineering and resolve the issues. He was also asked to identify a use group for future land uses of the project. Water Works - This property is now shared by a private line. Eire protection is inadequate at the present time. An 8-inch water main extension is required to provide adequate fire protection. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A revised plan was submitted which addressed the concerns of the Traffic Department, but eliminated two more parking spaces. Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to conformance with the parking requirements. A motion was made and passed for approval of the revised plan as is, subject to: (1) no food service establishment, and (2) use is restricted to "C-3" and "I-2." The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 593 NAME: West Baseline Road Apts. Site Plan Review LOCATION: West Baseline Road, 3/10 mile west of Stagecoach Road (Highway 5) DEVELOPER: Systems Mgmt. Dev. Corp. 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 225-9407 ENGINEER: Canino, Maune, McQueen, Arch. 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 227-7777 AREA: 15.07 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "MF-12" PROPOSED USE: Multifamily A. Site History During rezoning of the property to "MF-12," a 30' strip of land consisting of 958.75' or .66 acres was dedicated. B. Proposal 1. Construction of 184 two - bedroom apartment units and a clubhouse on 15.73 acres. 2. Development Statistics: Phases No. of Units Area /Sq.Ft. 1 32 25,088 2 32 25,088 3 32 25,088 4 56 43,904 5 32 25,088 Clubhouse 2,000 Total 146,256 3. Parking will consist of 374 parking spaces. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 4. Physical Improvements - "Significant" drainage and street improvements will be provided along Baseline Road. They will be phased accordingly. Phase I - East end of property 336' Phase V - Along Baseline 622.75' 5. Landscaping will be in accordance with the Little Rock Landscape Ordinance. C. Engineering Comments 1. Boundary street improvements, including drainage. 2. Detention required. 3. Five lanes at major street entrance. Plans must be coordinated and approved by Traffic Engineer. 4. Collector standards on east side of property. D. Analysis The applicant has pointed out that he plans to construct four less units than ordinarily allowed in an "MF-12" zone. Also, he has provided about 98 more parking spaces than required. Staff is requesting that the site plan be revised to indicate structural dimensions, distances between all structures, distances from structures to the property line, the height of the buildings and the dimension of the internal drive. Usually, a 45' easement is required. The Fire Department must approve the on -site fire line system and its location. Traffic must approve of the six stalls in Phase IV that back into the drive. A 6' fence and a 40' buffer strip is required adjacent to areas zoned for single family. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee's main concern was the applicant's plans for phasing and its relationship to the required improvements. They considered it unusual to have five phases on the site plan and unacceptable to defer the bulk of the street improvements to the last phase. It was felt that if for some reason the development was not completed, the street improvements might not be completed either. Also, staff was concerned that Phase V was over five acres, which means that it can be sold off without platting. The applicant contended that the economics of the project determined the phasing. He was asked to: (1) provide a 45-foot access easement through the project; (2) readdress the phasing; (3) meeting with Engineering about the five lanes at the entrance; and (4) submit a preliminary sketch of the entire ownership. Water Works - A 12" water main extension will be required from Wimbledon Loop. On -site fire lines and hydrants will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Mike McQueen, was present. He agreed to build a 6-foot fence, but for economic reasons, he wanted to dedicate right-of-way of the collector and build in to the point of intersection until the property to the rear is developed. He also requested to install a fence in two phases as construction is done. He felt that the road wouldn't be used until the 22 acres at the rear was developed. The issue was discussed and a motion was made for approval of the application as filed, subject to dedication of right-of-way only, with construction of fence in two phases. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - File No. 116-E NAME: Countrywood II - Site Plan Review LOCATION: West side of Napa Valley, north of Ridge Haven DEVELOPER: Bob Wickard 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 10 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "MF-12" PROPOSED USE: Condominium A. Proposal 1. The construction of a condominium project on 10 acres. 2. Project Statistics No. of Units ......... 39 1-story with dbl. garage Size of Units ........ 1600 to 220 Units per Acre ....... 4.5 B. Engineering Comments 1. No adverse comments. 2. 45' minimum right-of-way. C. Analysis The submission appears to propose zero lot line units, which can only be accomplished by a PUD. It is also a departure from the original Countrywood concept. The site plan is also deficient, and there appears an excessive amount of streets and alleys. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Staff views this as an inadequate filing and suggests a meeting with the developer to discuss the project. Staff has too many concerns about the project to offer a definitive recommendation. The submission appears premature. D. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comment until further information is received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: There was some confusion over the proposed concept for development. The possibility of a PUD was discussed. The applicant asked to get with staff before the meeting. Water Works - On-site fire lines and hydrants will be required. Fire Department - Need a minimum of 20' street width, not able to maneuver fire equipment or no place to turnaround. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff had received a plan from the applicant, but had problems with design and density of the project. Mr. Joe White who represented the applicant submitted a revised plan. The plan was discussed, and a motion was made for approval, subject to approval by the Fire Chief. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - File No. 595 NAME: Village Green Apts. - Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located on the east side of N. Chicot, approx. 100' north of I-30 DEVELOPER: Mr. Leon E. McCasland 7300 NW 23rd Street Bethany, OK 73008 ENGINEER: Mehlburger, Tanner and Assoc. P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: 375-5331 AREA: 10.322 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "MF-18" PROPOSED USE: Apartments VARIANCES REQUESTED: Privacy Fence in the Buffer Area A. Site History This property was a part of the Orbit Valve subdivision plat approved last year and also was the subject of a recent rezoning action. B. Proposal 1. The construction of an apartment project on 10.322 acres. 2. Variance - Location of privacy fence in the buffer area at the northwest corner of the property where 8.42' of single family land abuts the property. The reason is to avoid placing such a short section of fence at this corner. A cluster of evergreen trees and screening shrub masses are proposed for buffering at this location. 3. Building Setbacks - A minimum building line of 10' established along side yards so that the required setback should be equal to the adjacent building height (approximately 8.75'). September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued 4. Development Statistics Total No. of Units ............. 172 Total Gross Bldg. Area ......... 128,269 sq. ft. Net Living Area ................ 110,632 sq. ft. Property Area .................. 10,322 acres Property Area Less ROW ......... 10.022 acres Density ....17.16 units per acre Total Parking .................. 287 spaces 5. Bldg. Square Footage Breakdown Bldg. Unit No. No. Type Sq. Ft. 1 7 2- Bedroom 6,011 2 8 2- Bedroom 6,870 3 8 2- Bedroom 8,870 4 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 5 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 6 8 2- Bedroom 6,870 7 8 2- Bedroom 6,870 8 8 2- Bedroom 6,670 9 8 2- Bedroom 6,870 10 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 11 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 12 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 13 6 2- Bedroom 6,888 (total) 1 Clubhouse /Office 14 6 2- Bedroom 5,152 15 8 2- Bedroom 6,870 16 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 17 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 18 12 1- Bedroom 7,766 C. Engineering Comments None at this time. D. Analysis Staff has several problems with the request. Our first concern relates to the design and density of the project. In his design, the developer has sacrificed livability for density. It is suggested that he build a little more variety into the design, and provide some breaks into the long linear drives, which as proposed, will serve to encourage internal speeding. The September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 - Continued southwest corner of the site is too densely developed and there appears to be an excess of sidewalk. Explain. There is an intrusion into the 25' buffer area by parking and sidewalks. The applicant is asked to revise this area and provide no intrusions into the area by physical improvements. Also, "MF-18" disallows parking in the front yard setback. It is very important that the Fire Department sign off on this plan and Engineering should comment on the potential of two access points with Mabelvale Pike. There may also be a name conflict. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the submitted plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Brown of Mehlburger, who agreed to address the points raised and meet with staff before the public hearing. He was asked to get the Fire Chief's approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A revised plan was submitted. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - File No. 596 NAME: Mills (I-630) Central Shopping Center LOCATION: East side of Shackleford Road west and south of Westchase Plaza DEVELOPER: J.D. Ashley, Sr. 2649 Pike Avenue NLR, AR 72114 Phone: 758-5775 ENGINEER: Edward F. Brueggem and Richard Caulder AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center A. Existing Conditions 1. The construction of a shopping center on approximately 3 acres. 2. Development includes: (a) Goodyear Store ............. 6,080 sq. ft. (b) 2 -Story Retail ............. 6,926 sq. ft. (c) Restaurant ................. 7,087 sq. ft. (d) Speciality Retail or Restaurant .................. 6,540 sq. ft. (e) Speciality Retail .......... 6,600 sq. ft. (f) Specaility Retail .......... 1,360 sq. ft. 34,360 sq. ft. 3. Parking consists of 157 spaces. September 10, 1965 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued B. Engineering Comments 1. Engineer's "as-built" plans should be provided showing concrete drainage structure location. Add steel steps at all access points. 2. Traffic Engineer must approve entrance on Shackleford Road. 3. Indicate dumpster locations. C. Analysis The applicant should justify the location of the building in the northeast corner over the drainage structure. The plan should be revised to reflect no building over the drainage structure unless certified by a structural engineer and /or at least a 5' setback from it. Parking is inadequate. The applicant must make up his mind whether or not he wants one or two restaurants so that a definitive figure on parking can be reached. Staff asks for assurance from developer that the 20' utility easement on the west side of Goodyear will not become a drive. Traffic should approve four-way crossing just inside the point of entry. There have been previous agreements regarding the design of internal access and abutting properties. Staff suggests continuation of the internal easement parallel to Shackleford Road that was committed by a Waffle House plat and elimination of the easement on the liquor store lot physically as well as legally. This will eliminate another access point to Markham. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced the square footage and removed the structures from over the box culvert and opened up the 20' easement to through traffic. The reductions included the 6,600 square foot building to 6,142 square feet and the 6,540 square foot building to 6,000 square feet. In response to the comment about the four-way crossing, the applicant offered to put four STOP signs at that location. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued There was further discussion on the provision of easements through the site. The applicant was asked to meet with the owners of the Waffle House and the liquor store and discuss an easement from the liquor store to Waffle House and from Waffle House to the existing shopping center. Also, to discuss with Henk Koornstra the location of the easement to be parallel with Shackleford. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Engineering reported that all problems had been resolved. The applicant would design over the box culvert with footings to the other side. Finally a motion for approval of the revised plan was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: Arkansas Medical Society Bldg. (Z- 3689 -C) - Site Plan Review LOCATION: West Side of Corporate Hill South of Markham Street OWNER /APPLICANT: Arkansas Medical Society Bldg. Limited Partnership /Flake & Co. PROPOSAL: To construct a three -story office building (41' in height) (33,277 square feet) and 97 parking spaces on 2.35 acres of land that is zoned "O-2." ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The site plan meets all the Ordinance requirements. The staff foresees no problem with the proposal. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) Detention plans are required; and (2) Sidewalks are required unless previously waived. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to City Engineer's comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with all staff recommendations. There were no unresolved issues. *The Water Department will require an acreage charge of $150 per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The staff recommended approval and stated that the City Engineer would address the sidewalk issue. The City Engineer stated that the sidewalk was not an issue. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 2 abstentions (Summerlin and Jones) to approve the application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Shackleford Road - Conditional Use Permit /Site Plan Review (Z-3901-A) LOCATION: The east side of Shackleford Road just south of Kanis Road (1301 S. Shackleford Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Leo B. King /Burton Speights Faucett and Company PROPOSAL: To downzone 3.2 acres from "O-3" to "O-2" and to construct a 96-unit residence /hotel (101 parking spaces). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Site Location This site is located in an area that is bounded by two arterials (Shackleford Road, Kanis Road, and Interstate 430). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property lies in an area that is about to undergo extensive development or redevelopment. Currently, single family uses are adjacent to the north and south, while the remainder of the adjacent property is vacant. The I-430 District Plan calls for this area to be used as major office. Properly developed, this proposal will be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking This proposal calls for one primary access (24 feet) (Shackleford Road), one secondary access to Kaufman Road, and 101 parking spaces. 4. Screeninq and Buffers This proposal calls for landscaping on the south and west property lines. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. The plan does, however, need additional information. The site plan needs to be September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued revised to include the dimensions of the recreational facilities, secondary access, parking area, etc. In addition, the "O-2" zoning district requires a 25-foot landscaped strip adjacent to the boundary streets. The site plan should include a 25-foot landscaped area adjacent to Kaufman Road. A screening fence should also be included on the north and south property lines to shield single family uses. Five additional parking spaces are required to meet Ordinance requirements. Finally, the applicant needs to provide phasing on the site plan as requested [Phase I (80 units), Phase II (16 units)] and label the uses of all the proposed structures. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Discuss access and boundary street improvements on Kaufman Road; (2) Engineering would support closing Kaufman. If access to other parcels is required, a crash gate for fire trucks is recommended on Kaufman with no other access onto Kaufman; and (3) Detention plans required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan to include all dimensions required, a 25-foot landscape buffer on Kaufman Road, screening fences on the north and south property lines, phasing plan, five additional parking spaces, and labeling of the uses; (2) comply with City Engineering comments #1, 2 and 3. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were general discussions about staff recommendations. There was some discussion about the possible closure of Kaufman Road. The applicant agreed to submit a revised site plan that would include what the staff had recommended. *(1) Southwestern Bell requires an easement. (2) The Little Rock Fire Department requires a minimum 50-foot turn radius. (3) The Little Rock Water Works will require a charge of $5 per foot and on -site fire lines and hydrants. (4) The Little Rock Sewer Department states that this projects exceeds 12.6 persons per acre and will require a contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The item was placed on the consent agenda where the Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 NAME: Riley Drive - Conditional Use Permit (Z-3021-C) LOCATION: The south side of Riley Drive just east of Barrow Road OWNER /APPLICANT: Keller Estate /Jeff Davis, Jr., Block Realty Company PROPOSAL: To construct a 132-unit (54 studios, 72 one - bedroom, and 6 two - bedroom) retirement apartments (95,200 square feet total) (59 parking spaces) on 4.03 acres of land that is zoned "O-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is located adjacent to a collector (Riley Drive). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is shown as multifamily on the Boyle Park Plan. This site is abutted by multifamily on the east. The remainder of the surrounding area is vacant. The staff views the proposed use as being compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking This proposal contains one ingress /egress to Riley Drive (25 feet) and 59 parking spaces. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The proposal contains a landscape plan. 5. Analysis The staff views this proposal as compatible to the surrounding area. The staff does, however, question the type of accessory uses to be included. The applicant needs to outline all proposed accessory uses. Finally, the proposed parking area is deficient. Ordinance parking requirements require 66 paved parking spaces. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan that includes the required parking. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued 6. City Engineering Comments Sidewalks are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the required parking and sidewalks; and (2) submit information outlining the proposed accessory uses. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to submit a revised site plan that would include what the staff had recommended. The applicant also stated that proposed facility would contain a dining facility, and a barber and beauty shop. The staff requested that the applicant submit a letter outlining the accessory uses and the square footage required by each. The applicant agreed to comply. * (1) Southwestern Bell requires an easement. (2) The Little Rock Water Works requires a $150 per acre charge. (3) The Little Rock Sewer Department has stated that a sewer main extension will be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The item was placed on the consent agenda where the Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Summerlin) to approve the application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 NAME: Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind - Conditional Use Permit (Z-4526) LOCATION: The northwest corner of W. 30th and Harrison Streets (5300 W. 30th Street) OWNER /APPLICANT: Arkansas Enterprises for the Blind /Jim Cordell PROPOSAL: To convert a single family structure to a bicycle and small engine repair training facility on one lot that is zoned "R-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location Adjacent to two residential streets (West 30th and South Harrison Street). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding area. The site is surrounded on all four sides by single family uses. Small engine repair is first allowed in a "C-2" district with a conditional use. The Oak Forest Neighborhood Plan does show the block on which this site is located as a future public /quasi-public use. An extension of the existing training facility might be acceptable, but the proposed small engine repair would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking Access and parking are proposed from a 27' drive on West 30th Street. The applicant is also proposing to utilize their 68-space parking area on the north side of this block. Pedestrian traffic from the school and parking area would take access through the alley and a gate on the west property line. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant is proposing to construct a privacy fence on the east and west property lines. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff has previously stated that small engine repair is not compatible with the surrounding area (see #2). If the property were used as proposed, no outside storage of material would be allowed. In addition, the Fire Department would have to sign off on the safety of the structure. 6. City Enqineerinq Comments (1) Boundary street improvements are required on both 30th Street and Harrison Street; (2) The Fire Department must sign off on the use and structure; (3) The walls need to be soundproofed; and (4) Show parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A lengthy discussion ensued as to the appropriateness of the proposed use. The applicant stated that he felt that a misunderstanding had occurred. The applicant stated that the facility would employ two instructors, contain seven students and be operated 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He also stated that the students would assemble and disassemble the motors for training and that they would not accept work from the public. Finally, the applicant stated that he would check with the Fire Department, not allow outside storage and properly screen the property. * (1) The Little Rock Fire Department requires that the applicant provide additional safeguards on the structure of the proposed use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. The staff stated that a letter of withdrawal had been received. The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to accept the withdrawal of this item. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 NAME: Goodyear - Conditional Use Permit (Z-4527) LOCATION: The east of Shackleford Road just north of Markham Street OWNER /APPLICANT: Mills 430, Joint Venture /J.D. Ashley PROPOSAL: To construct a 6,080 square foot auto parts, repair, sales and service store on land that is zoned "C-3." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This site is part of a shopping center that fronts on an arterial street ( Shackleford Road). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The I-430 Plan shows this area to be a part of a community shopping district. This site is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses and an office to the west. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On-Site Drives and Parking The Goodyear Store will take access from an existing internal drive. Parking will be provided adjacent to the structure. 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant needs to submit a landscape plan. The parking, access and engineering comments on this item are contained in Item #11 (I-430/630 Central Shopping Center). September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to: (1) submit a landscape plan; and (2) subject to parking, access and engineering comments in Item #11 (I-430/630 Central Shopping Center). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and stated that landscaping had been included on the site plan. The staff agreed and responded that landscaping was not an issue. The applicant also stated that no outside storage would be allowed. * (1) The Little Rock Fire Department requires a minimum 50' turn radius. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTOIN: The applicant was present. The staff stated that there were no unresolved issues with this application and recommended approval as filed. The Commission then voted 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent to approve the application as recommended by staff and reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - File No. 29-38 NAME: Shell Super Stop LOCATION: 8000 Geyer Springs Road APPLICANT: Michael Sharp M.A. Jones Constr. Co. Inc. P.O. Box 3944 Batesville, AR 72501 Phone: 251-1969/793-2569 OWNER: Coulson Oil Company 1434 Pike Avenue North Little Rock, AR Phone; 376-4222 REQUEST: To encroach 10' into an area established by a 25' platted building line for the construction of an automatic car wash. A. Existing Conditions This site is currently occupied by a convenience store /gasoline service station. It is located in an area that is heavily developed as commercial. B. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting to encroach 10' into an area established by a 25' building line for the construction of a car wash. The applicant states his reason for the location is to provide a smooth traffic pattern so that traffic may enter on the south drive, off Geyer Springs, circle and line up around the perimeter of the owner's property and exit on the north drive to Geyer Springs. The layout will allow gasoline and convenience store customers to have plenty of drive room without interfering with car wash or street traffic. C. Enqineerinq Comments Flow of traffic to be designed through car wash from west to east to prevent blocking of driveway on Geyer Springs. D. Analysis Staff supports the request; however, the location of the Vacuum Station should be indicated so that its relationship to the point of entry and the traffic flow can be determined. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made and passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - File No. G-29-39 NAME: B and S Rental - Building Line Waiver (Lot 9 - Towne Oaks) LOCATION: 9301 Treasure Hill Road APPLICANT: H.M. Smith 6014 Forbing Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Phone: 565-7516 REQUEST: To replat a 40' building to 20' A. Existinq Conditions This site is located in an area comprised of commercial and multifamily uses. B. Development Proposal This is a proposal by the applicant to replat an existing 40' building line to 20' to facilitate an addition to the building. C. Engineering Comments None. D. Analysis Staff will support a reduction in the easternmost building line only if a 25' building line is platted on the west, and there is no further request for expansion of the site. Any further additions will cause the site to be overbuilt. On the plan submitted, the applicant has labeled an easement as a building line. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee. The applicant stated that there were no further plans for expansion. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - File No. G-29-40 NAME: Langston Acres - Building Line Waiver LOCATION: NE Corner of Warren Road and Yarberry Lane APPLICANT: Delbert S. Plante, Jr. GNP Enterprises 10018 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 REQUEST: To encroach 5' into an area established by a 25' building line. A. Site History This site is part of an "R7-A" Manufactured Subdivision approved by the Commission. B. Existing Conditions The land is flat and located in an area composed of single family homes. This is the first and only home constructed thus far. A concrete pad exists on the south side of the house. C. Development Proposal This is a request to encroach 5' into an area established by a 25' building setback for construction of a carport on the south side of the house. The applicant desires access from the carport to Yarberry Lane. D. Enqineerinq Comments None. E. Analysis A one lot final replat is required. The applicant is asked to place a statement on the plat and Bill of Assurance that the carport is to be an open structure. f. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 - File No. G-29-41 NAME: Wendy's Old- Fashioned Hamburgers - Cantrell Road - Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 7312 Cantrell APPLICANT: Wendy's of Little Rock 201 W. Broadway, Suite G NLR, AR 72114 Phone: 372-2000 REQUEST: To encroach 10' into a 40' building setback area. A. Existing Conditions This site is located along a major arterial and in an area heavily developed by commercial uses. B. Development Proposal This is a request to build a dining room addition that will encroach 10' into a 40' platted building line. C. Engineering Comments None. D. Analysis Staff has no problems with the request. A one lot final plat and Bill of Assurance are to be filed. E. Staff Recommendation Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 21 - File No. G-29-42 NAME: Wendy's Old-Fashioned Hamburgers LOCATION: 11,319 Rodney Parham APPLICANT: Wendy's of Little Rock 201 W. Broadway, Suite G NLR, AR 72114 Phone: 372-2000 REQUEST: To encroach into an area established by a 40' building line. A. Existinq Conditions This site is located in an area that consists of commercial uses. B. Development Proposal This is a request to encroach 10' into an area established by a 40' building line for a dining room addition. C. Engineering Comments None. D. Analysis Staff has no problems with the request. A one lot final and Bill of Assurance are required. E. Staff Recommendation Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed by the Committee and passed to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 - Other Matters /Street Abandonment NAME: The north /south alley in Block 341 of Cherry's Subdivision of Original City LOCATION: Lying in the block between Victory Street and Cove Street and north of W. 3rd OWNER /APPLICANT: Claude Carpenter By: Bill McClard REQUEST: To abandon the existing dedicated right-of-way and join with adjacent ownerships. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Way None. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right-of-Way on Adiacent Streets All of the adjacent rights-of-way are dedicated at the public need standard. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-Way Terrain The land area has a slight or gentle grade falling to the north toward West 2nd Street. The property involved in this block contains commercial parking lots, an engineering firm and a restaurant. A single residential user exists fronting onto the Cove Street frontage to the west of the abandonment. 5. Development Potential This right-of-way being unopened at present has no usage except as a part of the adjoining commercial properties. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 - Continued 6. Effect on Neighborhood Land Use The existing use of this block is primarily nonresidential. No adverse effects are expected. The alley as dedicated apparently has never been utilized as a conventional alley. It is currently overlaid by asphalt in some areas and undergrowth of brush and trees in other areas. 7. Neighborhood Position None expressed at this writing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities None expressed at this writing. The only concerns are those which have been developed by the Planning staff in the course of its review which indicate a requirement for retention of the standard utility and /or drainage easement. 9. Reversionary Rights The right-of-way will be equally distributed to abutting owners based on the dimension of the dedication as platted, each owner receiving approximately one -half. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this right-of-way subject to the retention of any needed easements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission discussed the matter briefly followed by a motion to recommend approval of the abandonment as recommended by the staff. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 23 NAME: Pleasant Hills Total Living Community - Revised Site Plan Review REQUEST: To revise an approved site plan. STAFF REPORT: This is a request for permission to operate a beauty and barber shop inside a retirement village. The applicant has had difficulty obtaining building permits. The site plan for the development was approved by the Commission in 1982. Staff has no problems with the request. The applicant is asked to document other uses desired at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The request was reviewed by the Committee. The applicant stated that there are no plans for other uses within the development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval, subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 24 NAME: Capitol Avenue - Conditional Use Permit (Z-4458) LOCATION: The southwest corner of Valmar and Capitol Streets OWNER /APPLICANT: Leslie Carter /Bob Richardson PROPOSAL: To receive approval for a revised site plan of a previously approved conditional use permit (duplex). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that they did not have any problems with the proposed revision. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. The item was placed on the consent agenda where the Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent to approve the application as reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 25 - Other Matters /Subdivision Enforcement REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of a tri-party agreement that is in default." ISSUE: The issue involves Mr. Kelton Brown's project on Hinson Road where he is in several months beyond completion date of the agreement. The staff requested a discussion for purposes of taking action against the developer. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The staff offered a historical perspective of the issue at hand identifying the following as important points: (1) The tri-party agreement of record terminated as to the completion date in March 1985. (2) Shortly after that date, the developer was notified of the City's concern for completion. The developer was given several completion deadlines, the last being August 19, 1985. (3) After failing to meet the August 19th deadline, the developer was directed to appear before the Planning Commission for purposes of explaining his actions and offering a termination date that was realistic. The applicant was present and was accompanied by his engineer, Mr. Robert Richardson. They informed the Planning Commission that the project was almost complete, that the base course had been inspected by the City and was ready for application of asphalt. A general discussion of the matter followed. Mr. Richardson was asked whether he had a firm date for final completion. He offered September 30th in order to finish the work and have the project inspected and placed under the maintenance bond. The Commission accepted this report, the projected completion date and requested that staff follow up on the matter. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 26 - Other Matters /Zoning Enforcement REQUEST: "Planning Commission review and discussion of an applicant's failure to comply with zoning conversions." ISSUE: The applicant, Mr. Fulkerson received "MF-6" zoning on a large tract in exchange for a certain covenants in a recorded instrument. Those covenants generally provided for Mr. Fulkerson's construction of 1/2 mile of Hinson Road to arterial standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The staff offered an overview of this issue, including a history of the zoning application, the street improvement commitment and the several plats that have already been completed abutting the street. The Commission was informed that the requirements for the street were contained within a record agreement with a specific date for initiation of improvements and a requirement that the project be pursued diligently until completed. The staff and Mr. Williams, the project engineer, identified several mitigating circumstances. These were conflicting agreements with other projects and problems of completion of certain testing procedures. The Commission discussed the matter briefly. It was determined that the roadway plans have been completed and approved by the Public Works Department and that a start-up date is imminent. The Commission directed staff to place this matter on the next Planning Commission agenda for purposes of receiving a report from Mr. Williams on a completion date. The item will be placed on the scheduled Planning Commission agenda for September 24, 1985. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 27 NAME: Jim Brown Replat LOCATION: 16,505 Taylor Loop Road DEVELOPER: Jim Brown 8922 Fairhaven Road Little Rock, AR 72205 Phone: 255-9793 ENGINEER: Environmental Technical Consult. 1510 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: .5 acre NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Existing Conditions This site is located in an area that is rural in character and composed mainly of single family homes. B. Development Proposal This is a request to plat a parcel of .5 acre into two lots for single family use. 2,820.96 sq. ft. of land is dedicated for right-of-way. C. Engineerinq Comments None at this time. D. Analysis Staff has no major problems with the request. This would have been a lot split handled by the staff if there was no right-of-way dedication. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION.COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application and passed it to the Commission. Engineering had no adverse comments. September 10, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 27 - Continued PLANNINq COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. A motion for approval subject to comments made was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. DATE jEPTo / Q 8 S ,_ MEMBER A J.Surmner1in V J.Schlereth y R.Massie � B.Sipes ✓ J.Nicholson / W.Rector v w.Ketcher // D.Arnett y D.J. Jones // I.Boles A- J � Clayton t/ B I ✓ ✓ v V ✓V v v V v ✓t/ A i/ J/ y //v ✓// P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS 2.. ¾ 1. 4 5 " 7 g Cf -/0 I ( / 2. ✓✓ v ✓ v V v V v ✓AB ,,,,. ✓ J/ ✓-✓ ,/✓ ,,(V ,/ ✓ v' J/ ✓ t// A A A y t/ V v J/ v ✓ ✓ V ✓t/v v // v v' t/ ✓ (/ ( V J/' I/ . v � v / t/ ✓ ✓ ✓// t/ ✓ t/ v t/ ✓ I/ A � A· A· y A A v' v ✓t/ t/ ✓✓ v J/ ✓ ✓ 4B v' ✓ t/ ✓ t/ t/ % I""' t/ As----_L-------._ J/ V / /. ✓ ✓ v V J/ ✓v ✓AYE O NAYE A ABSENT �ABSTAIN Sf4EET I {2 /3 14-JS Ito /7 /J /9 2.0 V 4t3 V ✓ v V ,__,.,,. V v J/,/.✓ ,,_,..-L/" ,_,/ v ✓ � ✓ ---,,,,,,,,----- y ✓v" J/ �-� ,,__,,,.. Y" --- � t/ � ✓-,I.;""'" v--.?--"' v-✓ � /i----� ,1.....--· � v--✓ .� A L,,--�� ,:,.---- t,/" ✓� ✓ �l---' �£...--"' L.---v I,.,-""" ✓ i----�-t------- A r--L------- ,I/'"' V -v J-----� -- DATE �EPL io.·es P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N V O T E R E C O R D I • MEMBER 21 22 2."> 24-ZS ct: 27 J.�.--�1-f n -V'( I/ V--f 7 V J • Schlereth Y v v-_. \ \ ...- R.Massie y"' v--,,,,,,.. � / ) V"' B • Si oes t/ t,-v' v--\ \ ...- J • Nicholson t.-' I/' � (./ � WJ ✓ W.Rector v � v-.....--�h � ITEM NUMBERS W.Ketcher v t.--" v" _... � � v" .. D.Arnett _ t-: � v--"' (J \) c/ ' - D.J • Jones v I/' v--_-< � � I I I.· Bo 1 es A \ 1 A� \ \�. ) s r J; Clayton v 1,/' .v-� 1 t-o I ✓AYE <i'NAYE AABSENT �ABSTAIN September 10, 1985 There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. Chairperson Secretary Date