Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 30 1997subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 30, 1997 4:00 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 The Minutes of September 18, 1997 and October 2, 1997 were approved as submitted. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Suzanne McCarthy Craig Berry Sissi Brandon Doyle Daniel Hugh Earnest Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Pam Adcock None City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA OCTOBER 30, 1997 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat (S -200-D) B. Master Street Plan Amendment - Chenal Parkway C. Smith - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6379) D. Kanis Road Corridor Committee Report II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Chenal Place Preliminary Plat (S-1158) 2. Parkway Motors Preliminary Plat (S-1159) 3. Country Homes Replat (S-1160) 4. Markham St. Commercial Replat (5-1161) 4A. 11624 West Markham Rezoning - R-2 and C-3 to C-3 5. Westrock Revised Preliminary (S -801-E) 6. Baptist Health/Kanis South Addition (S-1162) 7. Darragh Comm. Final Plat (Waiver request) (S -1125-A) III. PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENTS: 8. Parkway Motors PD -C (Z-6406) 9. Borkowski PD -R (Z-6405) 10. Dorbin PCD (Z-6404) 11. AR Systems Long -Form POD (Z -6051-B) 12. Phil -Cord PD-I/Amended PD -I (Z -4461-B) 13. Berry PD -R (Z -4050-B) 14. Max Mart Office Building POD - Reinstate (Z -5770-A) Agenda, Page 2 IV. SITE PLANS REVIEW: 15. AR Systems Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -6051-C) 16. Boen Subdivision Site Plan (S-1163) 17. K -Mobile Home Park expansion (S-1164) Site Plan and Preliminary Plat V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 18. Christ Lutheran Church and School - Conditional Use Permit (Z-1997-8) 19. Alta Mere - Conditional Use Permit (Z -2851-A) 20. St. Bartholomew Catholic Church - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6408) 21. Morgan - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6409) VI. OTHER MATTERS 22. Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment - Block 113, Original City of Little Rock (G-23-277) 23. Infrastructure project screening criteria 24. Burlingame Valley Plan Amendment (Burlingame Road) 25. British Cars of Little Rock, Right -of -Way Waiver (Z -6380-A) c Z3NId i� W W � � � N a � \ Y � a m oayy m W N O yJ�'°� b M ° 8 1' z F Qi Q F- g°No N O °1Nobr 4 `rAi�r Z X O LL O w s U J � O � b 1 NOlIIWtlN OOS 5 SONibas W �O H NINdS 3A30 O U s i N M Y o cfl 0 2 f - J ~ t 0 � co ¢ � W W H b0 o v 0 U Oy1S ~� O�yg< S w 1A_ J ,^ 2 a 1n ° = 4 Sym 1 J� J° r no October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -200-D NAME: Northwest Territory Preliminary Plat LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 between Chenal Parkway and Hwy. 300 intersection DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Pfeifer Development Co. White-Daters Engineers 400 East 13th St. 401 Victory Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 43.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 1,500 ZONING: R-2, MF -18, C-2, 0-3 and C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #20 Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• The owner received plat approval in 1991 but allowed it to lapse after one year. This resubmittal is basically the same lot arrangement. The only changes are in the area of Lot 1 that was recently approved for a mini -storage, as a PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This 40 plus acres is varied terrain with the steep slopes and more difficult land in the large future development tract. There is nothing constructed on the property at this time except the Chenal Parkway extension. The land is in a sparsely developed area with a few scattered houses along Hwy. 10 and a church at Hwy. 300 intersection. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing, no organized neighborhoods nearby. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering. 2. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. Inclusion of Chenal Parkway in the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial should be a part of this approval process. 5. An additional 10 feet right-of-way will be required west of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10 north of Chenal Parkway at Hwy. 300 and at all planned commercial streets for future right -turn -lanes. 6. A minor arterial with a median is recommended as the adopted cross-section with cuts in the median limited to shown street locations. 7. Show the following: a) Street cross sections of proposed streets at 100, stations. b) Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines. c) Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and "MSP". d) Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. 8. Contact the AHTD for work at Hwy. 300, Hwy. 10, within the State Highway right-of-way. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment. Entergy: Easements required. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: This area is outside the City. Annexation or execution of a Preannexation Agreement will be required prior to service. A water main extension will be required. On site fire protection will be required on several sites. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations. CATA: Hwy. 10 express only - no all day service 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment required. Issues• Planning Division: Complies with Land Use Plan - no change proposed. G. ANALYSIS• There is little to be said about the plat except that the various items noted by Staff should be added in order to bring the plat up to code. These are: 1. Need Bill of Assurance. 2. Water and sewer source 3. More detail in vicinity map 4. Lot dimensions 5. Show lot 1 recorded. 6. Building lines 7. Lot 10, zoning current 8. Show Hwy. 10 and 300 current ROW. 9. Dimension AP&L easement. 10. Remove proposed zoning label. 11. Need phase plan. 12. Contour internal. 13. Show abutting owners. 14. Show PAGIS locations. 15. Mete and bounds description of plat. 16. Show city limits if abutting. 17. Wrong preliminary survey certificate 18. Utility service will require annexation. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to staff and Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 17, 1997) Mr. Joe White, Jr. was present representing the applicant. The Staff presented its comments and discussed the plat deficiencies with Mr. White and the Committee. It was suggested at one point that there are significant number of basic items missing that require refiling after correction. The Committee and Mr. White discussed how deferral could be avoided. Mr. White indicated that he could correct the filing deficiencies by Thursday the 24th if permitted to go forward. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D The Committee accepted his promise. The plat will be considered on August 7th only if he corrects the items noted. There was no serious discussion of specific points. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 23, 1997) The staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a deferral of the plat until September 18, 1997 in as much as Mr. Pfeifer will be out of town. More time to upgrade the drawing will be provided. Staff recommends the deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 7, 1997) The Staff reported that the owner has requested a deferral until September 18th agenda and that this item should be placed on Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion was made to place the item on Consent Deferral. A motion to approve the deferral of the plat passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1997) Staff reported that Mr. Pfeifer's agent, Mr. White, submitted a letter requesting deferral until October 30th. The letter was in order and time. This is the applicant's second deferral request, although staff recommended its deferral last meeting due to plat deficiencies. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997) The applicant submitted a written request for deferral. The request was in order as to submittal time. The staff reported that the applicant is requesting his second deferral which means some action must be taken on the plat at the next meeting. After a brief discussion, the plat was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to October 30, 1997. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was present for Mr. Pfeifer. He stated he would ask for street design variances. Staff offered its comments. There was a discussion on adding more plat details. Mr. White 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D said he understood staff comments and would respond by October 16 with an amended cover letter with variance and plat revisions. The Public Works comments are as indicated in the first report. The Committee accepted the revised plat with the changes promised. This plat is forwarded to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that there were no objectors, letters or calls on this issue. The Public Works staff has worked out an arrangement with the developer, Mr. Pfeifer, dealing with concerns they had previously outlined. Richard Wood, of the Staff, reported that there was a continuing issue that the Public Works Department needed to address. Mr. David Scherer, of Public Works, came forward to speak on the issue. Scherer identified the plat as being a multi -lot commercial office and multifamily development at the corner of two arterial streets being Hwy. 10 and the extension of Chenal. He stated that Public Works had concern with the extension of this street and a tie to Hwy. 300 and the developing commercial and other interest along this section of roadway. He stated, "with the requirements for left turn movements in association with the improvements at the Hwy. 10 and Chenal Intersection would cause or soon necessitate the installation of a traffic light at this intersection and staff recommends that this developer contribute 50% of the cost of the installation of such a facility." Mr. Scherer followed this by saying the developer has suggested a 20% contribution. This is the remaining issue before the Commission. Commissioner Berry posed a question to Mr. Scherer on the total cost of such an installation. Scherer stated it would cost more than $100,000 dollars and this figure could vary with the circumstances. He said that Public Works was not asking for the contribution at this time. He stated the developer has asked for and received a deferral of such improvements. He stated this traffic signal would be paid for at the time it is warranted by traffic counts and needs and approved by the Highway Department. Commissioner Rahman then posed a question as to who would pay for the other 50%. Mr. Scherer stated that would be a public cost and possibly shared by some of the development on the south side of the intersection. Jim Lawson of staff inserted a statement to the effect he assumed that when the other side of the intersection submitted a development plan that we would assess the same cost. Scherer 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D responded by saying yes they would assess such a benefit at that time. There was a lengthy discussion about percentage of contribution both on the north side developer and the south side. Also, as to the certain traffic movements along Hwy. 10 and on to the Chenal leg of the intersection being somewhat different. Mr. Scherer stated that the traffic generated from this developer meaning Mr. Pfeifer's project would be predominately left hand turning movements which are more significant and would typically require the traffic signal. Commissioner Rahman then raised the question of what the 50% was based upon. The response by Mr. Scherer was that Mr. Pfeifer's development was building half of the development at this intersection. The discussion then continued at length about the ratio of contribution. At this point the Chairman recognized Mr. Gene Pfeifer, the owner and developer of the project. After introducing himself, Mr. Pfeifer offered some comments concerning the traffic movements on Hwy. 10 and what he felt to be was the traffic flow in the area. He further described the highways and their relationship in the areas of the state that they serve and the amount of traffic that was contributed by each. He stated the development of his property was a small portion of the traffic through this intersection. He further stated that it would not be supportable for him to come to the Commission and state that he would contribute nothing to the intersection. He stated it is unfair that the property owners would have to bear the burden of the entire signalization. He is willing to pay 60% of whatever Deltic pays whenever they agree to pay it. He stated this would be deferring the issue of how much the property owners pay at all, then apportion it between the two owners based upon their respective commercial zonings. He said this is patently unfair that the City would pay half of the improvement and he being committed to pay the other 50%. At this point the Chairman recognized Commissioner Earnest. Commissioner Earnest stated there was an existing road that bears a specific amount of traffic and the only exercise in logic that he could see would be the increase to the total traffic that exist. Coming from the anticipated development, you might have some type of formula for coming up with an equitable cost. Mr. Pfeifer agreed with that statement and basically continued his thought by saying if his project was not crossed by this arterial street and it were not a state highway, perhaps the type of construction he would have to place there would not have to be the same standard because it would not bear the same load. This would not even require a four or five lane roadway. He stated that he was not quarreling with the fact that it is a state development here. Mr. Pfeifer stated that he was agreeing to build this facility on a deferred basis and phased. In essence to have to build what is a state highway, and then provide for the traffic light does not seem fair. 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-200-D Commissioner Daniel was then recognized for comment. He stated that he had just one problem with the commentary of Mr. Pfeifer. It had to do with an intersection further east on Chenal Parkway. Commissioner Daniel offered extensive commentary on how that signal was located and paid for and the demands which were placed on various participants to erect a signal there. If the State Highway Department is not going to erect a signal at this intersection, then it would be the responsibility of the City. He felt the City could not do that at this point; therefore, it should fall to the adjacent developers as done further east on Chenal. At this point the Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn for a statement. Commissioner Hawn stated he was not particularly impressed with the argument about what the people south of Hwy. 10 owed. He expanded his comments dealing with the turning movements on Hwy. 10 and asked for a response from Mr. Pfeifer. He stated that the turning movements were something not generated by the people south of Hwy. 10 but by the movements coming from the north and west. Mr. Pfeifer stated that in the absence of a signal at this intersection and the shortcut his development would propose. A signal would have to be erected at the existing intersection to the west at Hwy. 300. Mr. Pfeifer then said this corner at the existing 300 intersection is a perfect example of putting 25% on each of the four corners is arbitrary. He stated that currently the northwest corner of this intersection is a lake and to assess a $25,000 contribution on a property such as this is an unfair way of doing it. Commissioner Hawn then asked Mr. Pfeifer if he knew what the current accident rate was at this intersection. Mr. Pfeifer stated that he had no idea. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Adcock. She asked for other examples within the City where significant contributions to signalization have occurred where the developer had to pay for putting up the signals. Mr. Scherer. of Public Works, first off responded to a first question that was a hangover from the previous comment. He stated that he did not know what the current traffic accident rate was at Hwy. 300 and Hwy. 10 intersection. Mr. Scherer then offered an extensive commentary on infrastructure needs throughout the city. He stated the contribution was not required at this time but in concert with the development as it occurred. Commissioner Earnest then inserted a comment that he was still trying to understand the rationale behind the 50% contribution. He stated he wanted to know where the 50% and the 20% came from. 7 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -200-D Scherer stated that the 50% came from the fact that Mr. Pfeifer owned 2 of the 4 corners of this intersection. Additional discussion occurred involving Mr. Scherer, the Chairman and others. Concerning the Autumn Road intersection and contributions offered there. The discussion about the rationale behind this contribution continued extensively. At the end of discussion the Chairman regained control of the meeting. A comment was made that the city should accept the 20% that is offered. A motion was then discussed concerning accepting Mr. Pfeifer's application with the requested phasing and the 20% contribution for traffic signal as offered if it is ever constructed at this location. A motion to that effect was made and seconded. A vote on the motion produced 6 ayes, 4 nays and 1 absent. The application is approved. 1.1 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.• B Name• Location• Request• Source• STAFF ANALYSIS: Master Street Plan Amendment Chenal Parkway - Cantrell Road to Highway 300 Designate Chenal Parkway as a Minor Arterial Planning Staff The request is to designate Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road north to Highway 300 as a minor arterial with Standard Minor Arterial design standards. This request is being brought forward as a matter of clarification. When the Master Street Plan was adopted in 1988 Highway 300 was designated a minor arterial. An assumption had been made by the development committee that Chenal Parkway would be designated as Highway 300. As this did not happen, the current alignment of Highway 300 was designated as a minor arterial, which brings into question but the portion of Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road north to Highway 300. Staff believes the intent has always been to designate this portion of Chenal Parkway (north of Highway 10) a minor arterial. Staff recommends that Chenal Parkway from Cantrell Road north to Highway 300 be designated on the Master Street Plan as a Minor Arterial to be built at Standard Minor Arterial design standards. STAFF UPDATE: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997) The accompanying plat has been deferred until the October 30 meeting. Staff recommends deferral of this item till the October 30 agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) This item was placed on Consent Agenda and passed unanimously (11-0). October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6379 NAME: Smith - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 3823 Walker Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert Smith/Tressa Smith PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the operation of a day care center (maximum enrollment of 16 children) within an existing residential structure. The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the east side of Walker Street, approximately three blocks south of West 36th Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The general area is exclusively single-family residential in nature. West End Park (city park) is located one block to the north, along the south side of West 36th Street. The site contains a single -car driveway from Walker Street. It will be extremely difficult for the applicant to meet the minimum parking requirements for the proposed use. With this in mind, staff feels that conversion of this site to a full-fledged day care center (not a day care family home) will not be consistent with the general area and could have adverse effects (on -street parking traffic, etc.) on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 20 foot wide driveway from Walker Street. The minimum number of parking spaces as required by ordinance for the proposed use is five (5). The applicant has proposed a maximum enrollment of 16 children and four (4) employees. Five (5) off-street parking spaces which comply with ordinance requirements October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6379 (size and maneuvering area) do not exist on the site plan submitted. 4. Screening and Buffers: A six (6) foot high opaque wood fence should be provided to screen the playground area from the adjacent residential properties to the north, east and south. 5. Public Works Comments: 1. Dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way from centerline is required for commercial uses. 2. Half street improvements will be required with construction for Walker Street to collector street standards per the Master Street Plan or provide in - lieu contribution equal to 15 percent of construction costs. 3. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged during or prior to construction with construction. 4. All driveways shall have concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5. Provide adequate off-street parking, recommend widening driveway to 20 feet. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No Comments. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a day care center within the existing single-family residential structure at 3823 Walker Street. The property is zoned R-3. The applicant is proposing to utilize the one-story, 956 square foot structure as a day care center for a maximum of 16 children. The site will not be maintained as a residence. The proposed day care center will include four (4) employees. The proposed hours of operation are from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No signage is proposed with this application. A total of five (5) off-street parking spaces is required by ordinance for the day care use as proposed. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing single car driveway to a 20 foot wide driveway. This enlarged driveway may allow five (5) vehicles to be pulled off the street, however, the parking area does E October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: z-6379 not meet the ordinance minimum design standards. The minimum stall sizes and maneuvering areas are insufficient. The applicant is requesting a variance from these standards. The applicant is also proposing to construct a wood privacy fence to screen the playground area within the rear yard. Staff feels that conversion of this residential structure to a day care center, with no residence being maintained on the site, will not be consistent with the existing single-family neighborhood and could have adverse effects (on -street parking, increased traffic, etc.) on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1997) Tressa Smith was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed the Public Works requirements with the Committee. He suggested that the applicant meet with the Traffic Engineer concerning a widened drive from Walker Street or a possible circular drive. Staff noted that the site plan submitted does not make allowances for the required off-street parking. There was a brief discussion concerning parking. The applicant stated that she would try to revise the site plan to include the parking spaces. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997) The staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to send the required notification to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended deferral of the item to the October 30, 1997 agenda. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to October 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6379 30, 1997. A motion to that effect was made. The motion Passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. Staff supported the withdrawal request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.• D NAME: Kanis Road Corridor Study SOURCE: Kanis Road Corridor Study Committee STAFF REPORT• In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake a study of the Kanis corridor. The Board viewed the Kanis corridor as a fast developing area which needed special treatment. A nine member citizen committee was appointed and first met in December 1996. The study area was originally to be Kanis Road from Rodney Parham to Ferndale, but the committee focused on the section of Kanis Road from Shackleford to Chenal. Areas to the north and south of Kanis Road were also included, up to a half mile. The boundaries were flexible, to assure surrounding impacts and issues were included. Staff developed a process for the corridor study and the committee members agreed on a number of tasks that needed to be accomplished as part of their work and to ensure a comprehensive review of the issues. This included a review of the existing land use and zoning patterns, a review of the Future Land Use and Master Street Plans, a review of the current development trends in the area, a review of the Chenal Task Force recommendations and the Chenal Parkway Corridor Study, and discussions on design overlay districts (DOD), roadway designs and funding alternatives. Many issues were debated including: future land use, roadway design and funding alternatives. The issues were presented to the public at a open house in July 1997. Four land use options, three roadway design options and funding alternatives were presented to over one hundred interested individuals and property owners. Prior to the public presentation, the public was invited to review the presentation boards and ask questions in an informal setting. At the most recent Kanis Road Corridor Study meeting, committee members were asked to rate the four land use options, the three roadway design options and the funding alternatives. The committee members were to rate the options from their first choice to their last choice. The results of this rating are found in the draft of the "Report of Kanis Road Study Committee" which is included with the agenda. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 2, 1997) The Ranis Road item was presented by Rusty Sparks, Chairperson of the Ranis Road Study Committee. There were a number of interested individuals in attendance and two committee members, Dickson Flake and Mary Zehr, were present. Rusty Sparks addressed the Commission and gave an overview of the committee's work and the process that was used. Mr. Sparks explained the committee's charge and that the Mayor asked the group to think "out-of-the-box." Mr. Sparks said Phase I of the study was I-430 to Chenal Parkway and the committee concentrated on the Ranis corridor from Bowman Road to Pride valley. As part of the process, the committee reviewed existing conditions, Master Street Plan, current land use plan, previous traffic studies and the work of the Chenal Task Force. Mr. Sparks said the committee also took a "field trip" and viewed the corridor from a bus. Mr. Sparks then discussed the committee's efforts to address future land use and to determine if changes were warranted. After many hours of debate, the committee agreed on four land use options to present to the public for comment. Mr. Sparks then reviewed the four options and described the major differences between them. (Graphics and overhead transparencies were used during the presentation.) Mr. Sparks said that Options 1 and 2 recommended a mixed use approach, but Option 1 was more sensitive to the topography and Option 2 suggested a more intense land use pattern. He went on to say that Option 3 was the "out-of-the- box" approach because it identified large scale unified development districts and did not specify land use. Mr. Sparks described Option 3 in some detail and said that land use, roadway design and financing were a package and tied together, an integrated concept. Mr. Sparks said Option 4 was the current land use plan for the corridor. After reviewing the land use options, Mr. Sparks commented on the roadway designs and funding alternatives. Mr. Sparks said that the Ranis Committee agreed with the Mayor's Infrastructure Task Force on the need for exploring innovative financing mechanisms for street improvements. Mr. Sparks made a number of remarks about the funding issue. Mr. Sparks then told the Planning Commission that the committee members were asked to rate the land use options, roadway designs and funding alternatives. Mr. Sparks referred to the Ranis Report and said the ratings could be found in the executive summary. (See attached sheets.) Mr. Sparks said the committee spent many hours discussing circulation and traffic. He said the committee reviewed traffic October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (cont. projections generated by Ernie Peters (Chenal Traffic Study) and Metroplan. There was a long discussion about Option 3 and a number of comments were made. Rusty Sparks said that 18 districts identified on options were illustrative and somewhat conceptual. He said there could be fewer districts, and the area would be linked by a common denominator. Mr. Sparks indicated that he thought some support for Option 3 was expressed at the July public meeting. Dickson Flake, a committee member, was asked to comment on Option 3. Mr. Flake said that it could paralyze development and create some problems. Mr. Flake said the property owners would not work together and coordinating the timing of a development would be difficult. Mr. Flake told the Commission that he thought Options 1 or 2 were reasonable plans. Commissioner Craig Berry was also asked to comment on Option 3. Commissioner Berry said the concept was innovative and the city was not accustom to doing the type of planning suggested by Option 3. Commissioner Berry said the Board of Directors needed to see Option 3 and the development community could be gaining something by the land use not being specified on the plan. Commissioner Ron Woods spoke and said Option 3 presented too many unknowns. Jeff Hathaway, representing 3 property owners on Kanis, was asked to address the Commission on Option 3. Mr. Hathaway said he agreed with Dickson Flake and Option 3 raised some concerns. Ruth Bell, League of Women voters, said a Design Overlay District or other special districts was needed on Kanis Road. There was some additional discussion about Option 3 and other issues related to the Kanis Study. The Planning Commission took no action on the report and said it would be discussed at the informal meeting on October 16. The item was deferred to the October 30`h hearing and the Commission would be asked to make a recommendation at that time. (Staff was asked to develop some pros and cons for the options and to try to get more information about Option 3. It was also suggested that staff look at the Option 3 districts to see if they could be better defined.) October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The item was introduced by the Chair and staff was asked if there was any additional information to be presented. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, responded and said that staff had nothing to add. There were a number of interested individuals in attendance and several had indicated (registration cards) that they wished to address the Planning Commission. Kathleen Oleson, representing the League of women Voters, read a prepared statement and added some additional comments. Some of the major points made by Ms. Oleson included Kanis Road needed to be a rural suburban boulevard and Option 3 was a unique opportunity, especially with some design standards. Ms. Oleson said that the City should explore all the study's proposals and the Kanis area needed careful planning. Ms. Oleson went on to say the details of the roadway design and financing the road improvements were very important elements. Gladys Post, a resident on White Road, spoke and said she was representing the homeowners on White Road which she described as an established residential neighborhood. Ms. Post made a number of comments and said the residents appreciated the time and effort that the study committee and Planning Commission have given to the Kanis Road study. Ms. Post described the Kanis corridor and asked the Commission to give serious consideration to the established residential areas when considering the various options. Comments were then offered by several of the planning commissioners. Commissioner Hawn said that the Commission should accept the committee's vote on the options. Commissioner Putnam voiced his support for Option 2 because he said it was a middle of the road concept. He made some other remarks. Commissioner Earnest said Option 3 provided more flexibility and presented a concept that would allow developers to pull back from the regulations. Chairman Lichty expressed some concerns with Option 3. Commissioner Daniel said he viewed Kanis from Shackleford to Bowman as being commercial and from Bowman to the west as being very different. Commissioner Rahman said that Option 3 presented some unique opportunities for the city. Commissioner Hawn spoke again and said CATA has concerns with the parkway with service roads design. Commissioner Putnam suggested that the Commission forward the study to the Board of Directors without a recommendation. Commissioner Berry commented on creating a vision for Kanis and the need for some design standards. There was some additional discussion and the commissioners were asked to vote on their preferred options for land use, roadway design and funding. The votes were as follows: 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (cont. Land Use Option 1 - 1 Option 2 - 3 Option 3 - 3 Option 4 - 0 Roadway Desian Standard minor arterial - 3 Minor arterial five lane - 0 Parkway with service - 3 type roads Fundina Developer pays for improvements - 0 Nontraditional general - 4 obligation bonds Improvements districts - 1 Impact fees - 0 (Some commissioners abstained from voting on the options.) Because none of the options received a majority vote of the Commission, the study would be forwarded to the Board of Directors without any recommendations. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the fall of 1996 the Board of Directors directed the Planning Staff to undertake a study of the Kanis corridor. The Board viewed the Kanis corridor as a fast developing area which needed special treatment. A nine member citizen committee was appointed and first met in December 1996. The study area was originally to be Kanis Road from Rodney Parham to Ferndale, but the committee focused on the section of Kanis Road from Shackleford to Chenal. Areas to the north and south of Kanis Road were also included, up to a half mile. The boundaries were flexible, to assure surrounding impacts and issues were included. Staff developed a process for the corridor study and the committee members agreed on a number of tasks that needed to be accomplished as part of their work and to ensure a comprehensive review of the issues. This included a review of the existing land use and zoning patterns, a review of the Future Land Use and Master -Street Plans, a review of the current development trends in the area and a review of the Chenal Task Force recommendations and the Chenal Parkway Corridor Study. The Kanis Road Study Committee met for a period of nine months and concentrated on three primary issues: land use, roadway design and funding alternatives. The committee developed options for the three focus issues and the committee's work was presented to the public at a July 1997 meeting. The options for land use, roadway design and funding are as follows. Land Use: Option 1 - a mixed use concept with an emphasis on low density and suburban office. Option 2 - a mixed use approach, but more intense than Option 1. Option 3 - designating eighteen "large scale unified development districts that can only be developed under a planned unit development. Option 4 - the current land use plan with no changes. Roadway Design • Standard minor arterial (four lane) • Minor arterial five lane without bike lane • Parkway with service type roads Funding • Developer pays for improvements • Nontraditional general obligation bonds • Improvement districts As the committee's last task, the members were requested to rate the four land use options, the three roadway design options and the funding alternatives. Committee members were asked to rate the options from their first choice to their last. Seven out of the nine members rated the options. Following are the ratings and the one with the highest point total is the preferred option. Land Use Points Option 1 22 Option 2 16 Option 3 19 Option 4 7 Roadway D gn Standard minor arterial 16 Minor arterial five lane 6 Parkway with service type roads 19 Fundi Developer pays for improvements 7 Nontraditional general obligation bonds 18 Improvement districts 14 Impact fees (added by committee member) 3 The committee was also asked if there is a need for a Design Overlay District along Kanis and a majority voted yes (six yes, one no). October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1158 NAME: Chenal Place Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 12401 Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Leonard Boen by Joe White, Jr. Dickson Flake White-Daters and Assoc. P. O. Box 3546 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 13.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: N/A ZONING: C-2 Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Building setbacks on internal lots to 15 feet from 40 feet. A. PROPOSAL: To preliminary plat this 13 acres utilizing a private street access for several of the lots. Some access would be taken from Atkins Street but not a through street. The developer identifies the potential users as C-3 type General Commercial. The 75 foot undisturbed buffer along the south line would not be intruded upon or affected by this plat. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently covered by dense trees and undergrowth. The land slopes from the south at Timber Ridge Subdivision to its low point behind the Chenal Buick Dealer. The maximum grade change is about 30 feet north to south. After site preparation, the 75 buffer will be well above this commercial project as will Timber Ridge Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing, the Parkway Place Association was notified by staff as will the abutting owners. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline of Atkins Road per the MSP. 2. Dedicate a 10, sidewalk/utility easement along Chenal Parkway. 3. Provide an additional lane extending to the beginning of the taper in front of the GMC dealership. 4. Provide an acceleration lane to the south per Chenal Parkway standards. 5. Remove the right-in/right-out driveways to comply with Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. The private street off of Chenal Parkway must be per Chenal Parkway standards. 7. The private street will not be allowed to extend to Atkins Road per City Ordinance. 8. Provide a cul-de-sac at the end of the private street for turnaround per city standards (45' radius, 55' radius for R.O.W.). 9. Show sidewalks on private street (both sides) and Chenal Parkway at back of right-of-way or easement. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to Atkins Road including sidewalk. 11. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 12. A grading permit is required on this new development if it disturbs more than an acre. 13. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: Water main extension required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrants, on and off site. County Planning: No Comment - inside city limits CATA: No response. Nearest all day service at Chenal and Bowman at Wal-Mart. Planning Division: No issues, conforms to plan. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment. Does not apply. 2 October 30, X997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1158 Issues: Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: Commercial platting conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff has thoroughly reviewed this plat and strongly feels that this platting action is not in keeping with the ordinance intent for C-2 Shopping Center District. Aside from the seven or eight plat deficiencies noted there is no site plan filed for a center that would support lots less than the five acre minimum. The private street planned and direct access of lots to Chenal are better suited to a less congested zoned site. We recommend denial of the plat as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The Planning Staff presented its report including Public works and others. Mr. Joe White was present for the owner. A lengthy discussion was held with the design issues related to C-2 zoning being foremost. Planning Staff presented eight plat content issues for resolution: 1. Move the south 40 foot building line from OS zone. 2. Show all building lines as proposed. 3. Indicate pavement design, more than width. 4. Show sidewalks and driveway points, interior. 5. Owners names on residential lots. 6. Phase plan 7. Need Bill of Assurance. 8. How terminate private street, or will it extend to Atkins Road. Mr. White offered comments on the waivers requested and addressed the staff concerns about the minimum lot size. The Committee expressed concern that there was no site plan to support the small lot platting and it was pointed out that there was not one lot that met the 5 acres out of the 6 proposed. The Committee indicated to Mr. White that he needed to pursue these issues further prior to October 30. This matter is forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff's recommendation. wood presented a brief commentary on the status of this plat as to the type of platting and its purpose. wood expanded his comments to indicate a site plan has been submitted for review by staff and Commission. However, it was submitted after the Subdivision Committee. wood stated that staff is requiring the developer to come forward and state the conditions under which they could accept the plat and plan being approved by the Commission at this meeting with resolution between the staff and the developer at a later time. Mr. Joe white came forward representing the developer. Mr. White presented the application and provided for the Commission a location of the plat relative to neighboring uses in the area and adjacent streets. Mr. White stated that in presenting this plat there were two waivers that the developer wishes to request. One of these is the minimum lot size for C-2 lots and the other being the set back requirements for interior property lines for the lots. He then proceeded to offer a general overview of the site plan as it is proposed. He characterized this site plan and plat as being similar to Chenal Village. He stated that this was a shopping center type development both with some flexibility as to the ownerships. He stated this proposal would have been on the Consent Agenda if they had filed the site plan earlier and it had been fully reviewed. Chairman Lichty then asked if there were other persons present who wish to support this application. There being none he moved the discussion then to persons who may wish to oppose the application. At this point, Jeannie Menser identified herself as a resident of the immediate area of Valleywood Drive. The question she posed related to the 75 foot buffer and its continued protection undisturbed, how the 40 foot building setback would work and how separate lots and ownerships would effect the residential relationship. Mr. Lawson, of the Staff, responded to the undisturbed buffer question by stating it meant that the trees cannot be removed or excavation occur within that 75 feet. He expanded his comment by saying that it had been previously agreed upon with the neighborhood in exchange for rezoning the property from Office to Commercial. Richard wood, of the Staff, indicated there were some concerns that have not been fully explored or discussed at all. The Chairman asked the staff if they wish to discuss these at this point. The response was yes. Wood proceeded to identify these several points of concern. The first and one of the primary being that access to the several lots has not been established on 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 the plat. He stated that landscaping and the signage have not been discussed or resolved in any respect. The height of the buildings was also pointed out as a concern. The last item was that there is no identification of the user of these buildings and whether or not the parking requirement that is reflected on the drawing would support the particular use that might be proposed. At this point, Jim Lawson suggested to the Commission they might want to approve this plat with a condition that all of these various items be resolved between staff and the developer. There were numerous items identified by both Lawson and wood that would need to be made a condition of the motion and the approval so as to adequately cover the approval and the establishment of a site plan. At this point, Mr. Joe white returned and stated he and his applicant were not at the meeting today to ask for a specific approval of the site plan that has been presented. The staff injected a thought they perhaps the developer had misunderstood the ordinance. The ordinance specifically requires a site plan to be approved in order to create lots where less than the ordinance minimum in area. Mr. white stated again for the record they were not asking for the site plan to be approved today. Simply the establishment of the lots with the less than minimum size. Wood pointed again that staff's original objection was that this plat created entirely substandard lots without the submittal of a site plan. This is required by the Zoning Ordinance in order to create small outparcel lots less than the ordinance standards. Commissioner Rahman then asked a question saying is it okay to have less than five acre lots. He stated that he felt most of the lots were acceptable and he had reviewed the site plan. There was then a mixed discussion between Mr. white and several commissioners involving access and several other issues. The Chairman then asked David Scherer, of Public Works, to come forward and respond to the question of access to the lots. Mr. Scherer said the development did provide for a Chenal Parkway standard access, an intersection with a median break to serve the lots and that lot 3 indicated a right -in, right -out type of driveway. He stated that with the appropriate deceleration and acceleration lanes and spacing of 300 feet from the primary median cut it would be acceptable. The city would not allow for an additional curb cut on the lot. Commissioner Daniel was recognized for comment. He made a lengthy statement about how this plan had changed since he had originally observed it and with the number of issues that has been raised perhaps this item should be deferred for six weeks. 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1158 Jim Lawson inserted a comment that concerning what the Commission might want to do if they felt these lots were of sufficient size. He stated they might want to recognize the plat and recommend its approval with the variances that are requested going on to the City Board to establish the lots at the current sizes. After the approval of the variance by the City Board, the developer would come in with each of the lots as they are sold and developed. The staff and the Commission would deal with each lot as it is submitted for a building permit. He stated, "If the Commission was comfortable with these lots, then we move on with it and take the variances to the City Board." Commissioner Putnam was recognized for a comment. He asked if Mr. White was comfortable with what Mr. Lawson had just offered. Mr. White stated that he was. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson what had transpired in the last several days that has changed the staff recommendation from denial to approval of this proposal. Mr. Lawson stated there is more information available at this time. He said, "If the Commission felt it could be developed into small lots and this is appropriate and we need to proceed with the plan. We can deal with it in the site plan as the lots come up for development." Commissioner Adcock was recognized and she posed a question to Jim Lawson as to why if the ordinance requires 5 acres minimum lot size, then why does staff support that. He stated that he did not think the 5 acre minimum lot size is necessarily reasonable. Commissioner Adcock offered several concerns with her primary one being that different people should not be treated differently with respect to the minimum lot size of 5 acres. At this point, Commissioner Hawn addressed the person who had previously asked for assurances about the 75 foot buffer. In a brief discussion, it was determined that she did receive the answer that she sought. Mr. Joe White confirmed also that the building setback line for any structures built on the lots abutting the buffer would be 75 feet. Commissioner Rahman offered a comment that he did not see where there was a particular problem with the 5 acres even though the ordinance specifically request such in this particular case. He felt like the arrangement of these lots was almost like a condo arrangement for commercial. As far as the development, it seems to meet all of the other basis of ordinance. Jim Lawson then offered an extensive comment and background on C-2 and C-3 as it related to this property. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question as how do you get to lot 3 in this development. The answer to her question was that Public Works had already reviewed and accepted the driveway apron that has been represented on the site plan and plat. 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1158 A discussion occurred at this point involving several persons off the record. It is garbled on the tape and not decipherable due to them not speaking into the microphone. At this point Commissioner Lichty offered a lengthy commentary closing with a thought that this should be deferred. Mr. White came back and stated that at this point perhaps a deferral would be in order. Commissioner Berry injected a thought that perhaps the 5 acre minimum is outdated and we need to change the ordinance. The Chairman called for a motion. Commissioner Hawn stated that he would offer one. The motion being that this proposal be deferred to December 18, 1997 Subdivision Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 7 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1159 NAME: Parkway Motors Preliminary Plat -- Lot 1 LOCATION: 12200 Block West Markham Street (south side) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Smith Carlton, LLC Joe White, Jr. C/o Ron Tabor White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 0.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: C-3 (being rezoned to PCD) PLANNING DISTRICT: #2 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• The creation of a one lot plat for commercial use, utilizing access from Entergy Dr. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot is a raised island between Entergy Dr. and W. Markham Street. There are a few mature trees some of which could be saved with good design. This island fronts on Markham Street but has a driveway along the west boundary that will affect all aspects of the commercial use of the land. That drive has a large Entergy power line and easement overlaying that restricts usage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. Birchwood Neighborhood was notified by staff. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1159 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. W. Markham Street is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Markham is required. 2. A 22.5' radial dedication, including the triangular piece across Entergy Court, is required at the intersection of Markham and Entergy Court. 3. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to W. Markham including sidewalk with construction of building. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two entrances off of Entergy Court and it needs to be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Entergy and Markham. 5. Close the private drive between Entergy Court and Markham and construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Entergy Court. 6. Construct 5' wide sidewalk along Entergy Court and Markham at back of right-of-way. 7. Provide an eight foot deep back -out for cars at west end of parking lot. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons. 9. Markham has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 10. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: No response. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Hell: OK as submitted. Water: The existing 12" water main crossing this property may be farther east than is shown. This main should be field located. The existing waterline easement is not shown. Additional easement may be required. Fire Department: OK as submitted. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. Located on West Markham route, all day service. Planning Division: No issues, conforms to plan. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1159 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Issues: No comment, does not apply. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, plat issue. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to resolving these plat content items and Public Works issues above: 1. Owners certificate 2. Source of title certificate 3. Why building line in AP&L easement? 4. PAGIS information 5. Source of access drive across west 50 feet of lot 6. Suggest that the west drive be eliminated if possible and allow greater building area. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was present for the owner. Staff presented its comments and concerns about plat content and design. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee asking a number of questions about this plat and the PD -C that accompanies this application. The Committee observed that the two issues closely tied, with the PD -C affecting this plats final configuration. The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability. After closing comment by Public Works staff, the Committee forwarded the matter to the full Commission for resolution in conjunction with the PD -C. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1159 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff recommendation. Wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. Wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. 0 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1159 Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The discussion then continued at length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exists. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1159 Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public Works, had comments to offer. Scherer•s comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right-of-way for this commercial street. He stated that, although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would affect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For the next several comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1159 should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works, recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a lesser amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy's question "is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet." The response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive from the west property line, the east edge of street, and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive and the private street. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 7 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1160 NAME: Country Homes Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 10,400 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: John Haley 10,400 Cantrell Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 664-1913 AREA: 7.23 acres ZONING• R-2 ENGINEER: Randy Alberius 11701 Interstate 30 Ste. 400 Little Rock, AR 72209 455-0455 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: None PLANNING DISTRICT: #3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Access to Lot 7-R by easement 2. Distance to a five hydrant for rear lot. A. PROPOSAL• To divide the current ownership and create a third lot well removed from Cantrell Road and served by an easement and a former county maintained right-of-way. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The three lots involved are on difficult terrain lying along side I-430 and constrained by limited access from Cantrell Road and no access potential from the east. The lots are covered by mature timber and currently contains two dwellings. A frontage road along Cantrell Road above the rock wall provides access. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None reported at this writing. Abutting owner will be notified. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1160 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide street plans conforming to the MSP for frontage access road off Cantrell. Construct half street improvements for this frontage road. Widen to 24, wide with 2- asphalt over 7- base material. Provide street plans for review to Bruce Kemmet, 371-4819. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 3. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: No response. AP&L: No response. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No response. Water: A main extension will be needed to provide water service to Lot 7-R. Installation of a private fire hydrant may be required. There is an existing 2 in. water main that crosses Lots 8A -R and 8B -R. The Water Works requests a 15 ft. wide easement for this line. Fire Department: OK as submitted but review with water for hydrant locations. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment on plats. Issues: Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, complies with land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to clarifying source of access road to new Lot 7-R and resolving Fire Department concern about location of hydrants. The owner needs to resolve with Public Works the special issues raised concerning the frontage road, street lighting and stormwater detention. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Haley, the owner, was present and presented his case. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1160 The Committee and staff discussed with Mr. Haley the issues attendant to access and ownership. The committee and staff were satisfied that access was no longer an issue but the plat should reflect information on the old County Road. The waivers were noted as acceptable. The plat was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) Richard Wood, of the Staff, reported that there were no significant issues attached to this plat. However, there were three waiver issues attached and two of these were of minor proportion. The third one was an issue the Public Works Department had raised concerning the ordinance requirement for widening the frontage road adjacent to the property which serves these three lots and dead -ends at the west end. After a brief discussion, Public Works stated they were not opposed to forwarding this item on to the City Board for the city waiver or deferral on the frontage road issue. They had no other concerns on this plat. The Commission then determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval and recommending the three waivers requested to the Board of Directors. A motion on the Consent Agenda for approval passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 3 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1161 NAME: Markham Street Commercial Replat LOCATION: 11700 Block West Markham Street (north side) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: L. R. Water Works Garver and Garver c/o Howard Lenz c/o Bill Ruck 221 East Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-3633 AREA: 0.79 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 and C-3 (being rezoned to all C-3) PLANNING DISTRICT: #2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• To subdivide a long triangular parcel owned by the city for purposes of creating one commercial lot to be sold. A rezoning application to classify the new lot C-3 has been placed on this agenda as item 4-A. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This lot is cleared of vegetation except brush growing in Rock Creek. There is one small pump building on the corner that will be retained in a separate parcel sized to accommodate the pump, valves and other mechanical features. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The rezoning application will cause notice to the Birchwood Neighborhood Association. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1161 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Markham and Bowman are listed on the MSP as minor arterials. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 45 feet from centerline. 2. Dedicate additional right-of-way for a right turn lane off Markham Street. 3. Construct a right turn lane off Markham Street to Bowman Road, 150' lane with 100' transition. 4. This property does fall within the 100 year floodplain and a portion of it in the 100 year floodway. A Development Permit and grading permit are required for Flood Hazard Areas per City Ordinance, Sec. 29-186. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. Improve sidewalks to current ADA standards with improved access ramps. 7. Bowman has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 18,000. Markham is 11,000. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No response. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: OK as submitted. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. West Markham route serves the site with all day service. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Issues: No comment, does not apply. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment - conforms to land use plan as commercial plat. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1161 H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the replat subject to Water works ability to remove conflict with Public Works Department street requirement and indicating the following on the plat: 1. Indicate building lines on plat. 2. Indicate access drives per ordinance. 3. Indicate ownership on floodway. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Dale Russom was present representing the Water Works. Mr. Russom indicated that he understood the requirements of staff and ordinance. A lengthy discussion of Public Works street requirements was held. The impact on the corner lot appeared to be the primary issue for resolution, with Mr. Russom responding to the Committee with specific comments on mechanical equipment that might have to be moved or left to location in a turn lane of Markham. Public Works staff clarified the several design and construction requirements they presented to the Committee. The Committee accepted Mr. Russom's offer to work with Public Works prior to the meeting on October 30`h and conform or request waivers. The Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) After a brief discussion of this matter, the Planning Commission determined that all of the issues attendant to this plat have been resolved. Both water works and Public works Departments have agreed upon the amount and manner in which dedication of right-of-way will be required. It was reduced to the radial corner of Markham and Bowman Road. Staff pointed out for the record that there were no objectors, letters or calls but information calls only. The Commission determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion was made to that effect. The Consent Agenda was approved by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 3 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 4A Name: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: City of Little Rock (L. R. Municipal Water Works) William Ruck 11624 West Markham Street Rezone from R-2 and C-3 to C-3 Future construction of a branch bank .67± acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multiple Commercial uses; zoned C-3 South - TV station and Convenience Store, zoned C-3; small strip shopping center, zoned PCD East - Multiple Commercial uses, zoned C-3 West - Branch Hank, zoned C-3 PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS 1. Markham and Bowman are listed on the MSP as minor arterials. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 45 feet from centerline. 2. Dedicate additional right-of-way for a right turn lane off Markham Street. 3. Construct a right turn lane off Markham Street to Bowman Road, 150' lane with 100, transition. 4. This property does fall within the 100 year floodplain and a portion of it in the 100 year floodway. A Development Permit and grading permit are required for Flood Hazard Areas per City Ordinances, Sec. 29-186. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. Improve sidewalks to current ADA standards with improved access ramps. 7. Bowman had a 1995 average daily traffic count of 18,000. Markham is 11,000. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The site is located on a Central Arkansas Transit Bus Route. October 2, 1997 ITEM NO.: 4A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6407 LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan recommends "CS" Community Shopping for this site as well as the large area of C-3 zoned properties to the north and east. Staff believes the requested zoning conforms to the plan and the development pattern of the area. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this .67 acre tract from "R-2- Single Family and "C-3" General Commercial to "C-3" General Commercial. This tract is one of two which will be created by the subdivision of a .79 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of West Markham Street and Bowman Road (see item No. 4 on this agenda, Markham Street Addition, File No. S-1161). The smaller, .12 acre, parcel contains a small, one-story Little Rock Water works pump station. This smaller parcel will be designated lot 1 and will remain zoned R-2. The larger, .67 acre, parcel will be designated lot 2 and is proposed to be zoned C-3. A small drive-in branch bank is proposed for development on Lot 2. This small, triangular piece of property is located between Markham Street, Bowman Road and Rock Creek. All abutting properties are zoned for and occupied by a variety of commercial uses. These uses range from shopping centers to freestanding restaurants, convenience stores and automobile related uses. The intersection of Markham Street and Bowman Road is a major commercial node with the Land Use Plan recommending "C" Commercial, "CS" Community Shopping and '•MOC" Mixed Office Commercial for the majority of properties in the area. Staff believes the requested C-3 zoning is compatible with zoning and uses in the area. In this particular case, staff supports C- 3 zoning for this site, although the land use plan recommends CS Community Shopping. The large, C-3 zoned shopping centers abutting to the north and east are also zoned C-3 and are shown on the Plan as Community Shopping. Staff believes the C-3 request for this site is compatible with the land use in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested C-3 zoning. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4A (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. q October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S -801-E NAME: Westrock Preliminary Plat revised, in part LOCATION: Lying on the north side of Executive Center Drive about two blocks east of Bowman Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Westrock Partnership DCI 11219 Financial Ctr. Pkwy. c/o Robert Brown Ste. 300 2200 N. Rodney Parham Rd. Little Rock, AR 72211 Ste. 220 225-0204 Little Rock, AR 72212 221-7880 AREA: 14.33 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 684 ft. ZONING: 0-1 and 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL: To replat preliminaryly a portion of this office plat in order to provide smaller lots to meet market need. The plat as offered will create eight lots on a cul-de-sac and one large lot fronting Bowman Road. The plan is to sell the lots and plat them one at a time. The cul-de-sac would be constructed in two phases with two plats conveying the dedications. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is generally undisturbed except as necessary to do some road work and utility work. There are no existing structures. The land is somewhat Hilly. The high point being the SE corner at 470+ feet elevation and falling NW to an elevation of 410± feet. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. Abutting ownership is mostly this developer. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -801-E D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Stormwater detention applies to this property. 2. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. 3. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. 4. Provide striping and signage plans for the development for Traffic Engineering approval. 5. Grading permits will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. 6. Previous commitments for relocation of Bowman Road and construction of half street improvements are required prior to final platting of Lots 4, 5, or 15. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: A water main extension will be required. Fire Department: Show hydrant locations - recommend 50' R for turnaround. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. No bus service nearer than Wal-Mart site on Bowman Road. Planning Division: No issues, conforms to plan. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Issues: No comment, does not apply. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the amended preliminary plat subject to a commitment to provide a combined final for record after sale of the eighth lot on the cul-de-sac, providing the phasing plan on the plat to clearly reflect the plan. Also assuring 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -801-E that Lots 10 and 11 meet minimum lot width at building line and conformance with Public works requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Robert Brown was present. Staff offered its comments and requirements. The Committee questioned Mr. Brown on several points dealing with phasing. Staff extracted from Mr. Brown assurance that at the conclusion of sales and final platting the ten plats would be combined for filing with the county. Mr. Brown stated he understood the staff and Public works comments presented. The Committee and staff viewed the plat as in order and forwarded it to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) Richard wood, of the Staff, offered the staff recommendation being approval of the revised preliminary plat. He stated there were no variance issues and staff supports the proposal for the phasing of the plat. Mr. wood pointed out that Mr. Robert Brown representing the applicant was present and wished to insert a statement for the record concerning the requirement of the Fire Department for a 50 foot radius on the cul-de-sac street. Mr. Brown then came to the lectern and offered the following statement. "The approval given is subject to staff comments made and Mr. wood stated it included a recommendation given by the Fire Department for a 50 foot radius cul-de-sac. The only ordinance standard given is for a 40 foot cul-de-sac and that is how they have drawn the plat. Therefore, he request approval of the file. For the record, this means the plat is approved with a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac street." Chairman Lichty asked the staff if they had a problem with Mr. Brown's proposal. Staff responded by saying no. The Commission then determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda was passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. KI October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1162 NAME: Baptist Health - Kanis South Addition LOCATION: 10,200 Block of Kanis Road (south side of Kanis) ENGINEER• Baptist Health The Mehlburger Firm C/o Earl Paul c/o Greg Sullivan 9601 I-630, Exit 7 201 South Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 202-2000 375-5331 AREA: 31.54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING• 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: #11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None A. PROPOSAL• To subdivide this 31+ acres of land in order to establish two lots at Kanis and Wilson Streets for sale. At this time, the owner does not have plans for the two large tracts along Wilson Road and further plat activity is expected. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract of land is totally undeveloped and covered by trees and undergrowth. The boundary streets are varied as to condition. Jr. Deputy Road is the only abutting street constructed to Master Street Plan standards. The land is rolling generally falling south and west away from Kanis Road. Areas to the south and east are developed residentially. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: One phone call at this writing. Notice was mailed to all abutting owners. The single call was an owner at 1309 Jr. Deputy with very general questions. He said he probably would not attend the meeting on October 30. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1162 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Kanis is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 45 feet from centerline prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Dedication of right-of-way of 60 feet wide along Wilson and a 20' radial dedication at the intersection is required. 3. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of 16"' Street, Jr. Deputy, and Aldersgate Road are required. 4. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to streets including sidewalk prior to final platting. 5. A grading permit is required if more than one acre is disturbed. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371-4740. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. Provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 8. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. 9. utility excavation within proposed rights-of-way shall be per Article V of Sec. 30. 10. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 11. Kanis Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 9700. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: On site fire protection required. May require additional mains. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant location. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: 1. No response. Baptist Medical Center route, all day service two blocks east. 2. Shuttle service on Aldersgate Road serves the camp and Good Shepherd. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1162 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Issues: No comment, does not apply. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, complies with land use plan as an office plat. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the applicant adequately responding to the issues set forth by Planning and Public Works staff. Those of specific concern to Planning Staff are: 1) offer some guidance as to the owners plan to terminate Wilson Road, 2) offer a position on building or abandoning W. 16th Street, 3) offer a phasing plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The application was represented by Ms. Sally Boatman of the Mehlburger Engineering Firm. The Chair asked her if the issues offered by staff could or would be dealt with by October 30th meeting. Ms. Boatman indicated that she understood the staff comments and that she would follow-up. The discussion centered on driveway access, the W. 16th Street status and the future of tracts. David Scherer of Public Works noted that Ranis Road is a construction project of the City to widen and that work will begin in the near future. At the end of a lengthy discussion, the Committee determined to pass the plat to the full Commission and directed the applicant to provide responses by October 16. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of offering the staff recommendation. Wood proceeded to identify the plat as to its type. He also pointed out there were some continuing issues from the rezoning history of the property which dealt with the eventual usage or discontinuance of Wilson Road and the abandonment of West 16th Street. Wood pointed out that the engineer and the applicant would be in attendance today and could address those issues. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1162 Mr. Frank Riggins came to the lectern and identified himself as well as Mr. Earl Paul, representing the Baptist Medical Systems. Mr. Riggins stated the issues that were identified would be addressed in a revised preliminary that would return to the Commission for the next review cycle for purposes of excising an additional lot at the corner Aldersgate Road. This revised plat would be filed on Monday of next week November 3, 1997. Commissioner Putnam at this point suggested the agenda as drawn had some 11 items for resolution. Mr. Riggins indicated that most of those items would be taken care of on this plat. Putnam stated that he understood at the Subdivision Committee meeting that these items would be taken care of prior to this public hearing. Richard Wood responded by saying they have except to the extent of the two areas of concern that were identified when the item was introduced. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who posed the question to staff as to why this item was not deferred. Wood responded by saying the plat is a simple issue and the several remaining items are holdovers which can be dealt with the second revision. Chairman Lichty stated he did not think a parallel could be drawn between this item and a earlier issue. The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else who wished to address this issue pro or con. Commissioner Earnest posed a question as to whether or not the issues needed to be resolved were things such as construction on Kanis Road. Wood stated that he believed Public Works had that issue of Kanis improvements pinned down because there is a project underway. Mr. Riggins returned to the lectern and stated that having again reviewed this list of items he stated they will be responded to as the various lots are developed. The Chairman asked if there was a motion on the floor. Commissioner Putnam offered a motion to approve the plat as presented. The motion includes an understanding that the applicant will address all of the items and conform to all of the recommendations and address the issues highlighted in the agenda. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 9 ayes and 2 absent. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-1125 EXTRACTED FROM MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 1997 FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. NAME: DARRAGH COMMERCIAL PRELIMINARY PLAT WAIVER OF SIDEWALK ON 6T$ STREET (S-1125) LOCATION: 1401 and 1403 East 6th Street DEVELOPER• Darragh Investment Company 1431 Merrill Drive, Suite F Little Rock, AR 72211 ENGINEER• Ben Kittler, Jr. 4701 North Reynolds Rd. Bryant, AR 72022 AREA: 9.01 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-2 PROPOSED USES: Industrial PLANNING DISTRICT: #6, East Little Rock CENSUS TRACT• 2 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The division of 9.01 acres into two lots for industrial uses. Both proposed lots are currently developed with several buildings as shown on the plat. The purpose of the land division is to allow the developer to sell the property labeled as Lot 2. There was a previous preliminary plat that was recorded on this site in 1985 but it was never recorded and has expired. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The surrounding area is largely developed and all zoned I-2. The locations of the existing structures will require modifications in the normal setbacks in the Section 36-320 Light Industrial District. (e) Area regulations. (1) Front yard. There shall be a front yard having a depth of not less than fifty (50) feet. (2) Side yard. There shall be a side yard on each side of the building having a width of not less than fifteen (15) feet. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1125 (3) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard having a depth not less than twenty-five (25) feet. (4) Lot area regulations. There shall be a lot area of not less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. In addition, there shall be a lot width of not less than one hundred (100) feet. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has received no responses from the public on this proposed preliminary plat. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS • Grading permit will be required on this new development, if it disturbs more than one acre. • East 6th Street and Thomas Street are substandard streets per City Ordinance. Widen to 18 feet from centerline and construct sidewalks. Since frontage are less than 300 feet, in -lieu contribution for the cost of the improvements may be provided. East 6th Street is a collector on the Master Street Plan. • National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. • Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer service available APDL: OK Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Water: On-site fire protection required. Relocation of existing meter will be required if this plat causes a private line connection. Fire Department: Please show hydrant locations. Advise it buildings are sprinklered. CATA: No response 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) •FILE NO.: 5-1125 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: N/A Issues: • Modify building lot lines to reflect existing structures. • Both lots will be recorded at same time. • Show sidewalks on revised plat. • Illustrate existing and proposed fire hydrants. G. ANALYSIS• The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance when revised to address the items noted in Section F of this report. David Scherer will comment on the request for a waiver of curb and gutter improvements. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of the two lot preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in this report. Planning Staff is making no recommendation of the requested waiver of curb and gutter improvements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 30, 1997) Ben Kittler presented the plat. He stated that they would install the sidewalks but wanted a waiver of curb and gutter work. Planning Staff requested a revised preliminary plat showing building lines that match the existing structures. The item was referred to the Planning Commission meeting on February 20, 1997 for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 20, 1997) This item was included in the Consent Approval Agenda. The approval is subject to staff conditions. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed with 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The Committee did not discuss this issue.David Scherer of Public Works explained the request and closed by saying the City 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1125 Board wants a commission recommendation on this and that it is something for the full Commission to resolve. The Committee asked that this be forwarded to the full Commission for recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman directed the staff to present its recommendation and the issue to be discussed. Richard Wood, of the Staff, identified this as a continuing item on the Darragh Preliminary Plat and asked that someone from Public Works step forward to explain the circumstances of this request. David Scherer, of Public Works, came to the lectern and proceeded to identify the issue. Mr. Scherer identified this as a plat that when it was presented to the Planning Commission for purposes of serving one of the parcels for sale there was boundary street issues introduced along Thomas Street which is the eastern boundary of the property. The developer will not access from this street. Mr. Scherer stated that Thomas Street is a substandard street and very narrow in width with no improvements. It is primarily used by the Afco Metals Development. Because it was a boundary street to this plat, the Subdivision Ordinance required improvements of the street. He stated because of a nearby restaurant that it might be appropriate since Thomas Street improvements would serve no practical purpose to accept the sidewalk on 6th Street in -lieu of the Thomas Street improvements. Mr. Scherer stated that the applicant's representative at the Planning Commission meeting at which that issue arose agreed to that in -lieu arrangement and the preliminary plat was approved on this basis. Subsequent to that action the applicant determined that he did not want to build the sidewalks and produced the request thats before the Commission. Scherer stated this is basically a return to a waiver request for Thomas boundary street improvements. The applicant then pursued the issue before the Board of Directors for a waiver of these improvements. The Board refused to hear the case because the Planning Commission had not heard a waiver request. The applicant had not previously a specific waiver. He further stated there is no specific requirement for sidewalk to be constructed along 6th Street because it is in a sidewalk exclusion zone set out in the Subdivision Ordinance. As a follow-up to a question from Commissioner Putnam about the staff's recommendation at the end of the agenda, Mr. Scherer stated the Planning Staff makes no recommendation. However, N October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1125 Public works maintains a recommendation of denial of the waiver and that the sidewalk be constructed. Commissioner Rahman then posed a question to Mr. Scherer as to whether or not the improvements to Thomas Street would be anything more than just curb and gutter. Scherer stated that as a plat issue for Thomas Street which is an industrial street standard. The requirement would be a 14 foot lane with a 6 foot paved shoulder with no curb and gutter. However, what is out there is about a 11 foot lane with dirt shoulder. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Darragh who came to the lectern to present his comments. Mr. Darragh offered a lengthy commentary on the condition of streets, specifically Thomas Street and the walking abilities along 6th Street without a current sidewalk. Mr. Darragh stating no one really walks through this area except for his parking lot. He also pointed out, to construct a sidewalk along the street would eliminate part of the landscape strip which has been constructed by his firm. He then offered some history of the plat and how he arrived at the current circumstances with a surveyor representing him at the Commission meeting and him out of the country. He then moved his discussion to the letter of credit which he had submitted to Public works to secure the improvement for final plat. Mr. Darragh stated once he had accomplished the letter of credit he did offer to Public works that he desired a waiver of this requirement and was instructed to approach the Board of Directors with such a request. This request was held in abeyance by the City Board at their public hearing and he was directed to return to the Planning Commission for purposes of gaining the Commission's recommendation on a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Darragh then briefly described the photographs that he had provided the Commission which illustrated the sides of the street in this area that are without sidewalk run for a significant distance between the two viaducts that crossover East 6th Street. Chairman Lichty then asked if there was anyone else present that wishes to speak on this issue. Commissioner Berry was then recognized for comment. He offered concerns about the possible location of the Clinton Library and the immediate neighborhood and that if we start waiving requirements we lose the ability in the future. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, reminded the Commission that if it is waived by the Board of Directors then it is a permanent waiver and staff continues its recommendation that it be constructed. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized. He stated that perhaps a move should be made to help reinvestment or investment in this part of town and to ask for improvements with the circumstances 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1125 given the current street and lack of sidewalks would amount to perhaps harassment. He felt that any kind of improvement in this area should be allowed to continue with as little harassment as possible. Chairman Lichty followed that comment with a similar statement that he had been in the area recently and observed there were walkers in the area but they were walking on the north side adjacent to the Steben Roberts• property. He followed up that statement by saying perhaps the construction of a sidewalk would disturb what has already been accomplished by Mr. Darragh in this area. Chairman Lichty suggested perhaps the sidewalk issue or requirement here might be attached to possible construction of sidewalk by neighbors in the area. Mr. Darragh indicated that he would accept that. Commissioner Putnam was recognized for comment. He stated that in this area nothing had changed for a significant period of time except for the improvements that had been accomplished by Mr. Darragh. Chairman Lichty pointed out that perhaps the commitment to build these sidewalks was imposed under duress given the circumstances. Chairman Lichty posed a question of staff as to whether or not Commissioner Berry's approach would be appropriate and that is to perhaps provide a variance and not a waiver. The variance would be an extension of time connecting the construction of this sidewalk to any future construction along this area that would require sidewalk. The staff responded in the affirmative. Mr. Darragh was then asked whether this would be acceptable to him. He responded yes. The Chairman then asked if there was a motion to this effect. Commissioner Berry offered a motion that the sidewalk improvements be deferred until such time as the adjacent properties are required to install the same improvements. At this point, Commissioner Hawn injected a thought that perhaps the Commission here is misdirected in that the issue here is the waiver or deferral of the improvements on Thomas Street and not the sidewalk along East 6th Street. He reminded the Commission that the sidewalk on 6th Street was simply a negotiated tradeoff for the improvements that were required on Thomas Street. Staff then suggested that the motion be restated to deal with Thomas Street. David Scherer, of Public works, came to the lectern and inserted a thought at this point. Since he will be preparing the ordinance, he would like to offer some language. The language would be, "deferring an in -lieu contribution to Thomas Street to be used for purposes of constructing a sidewalk on East 6th Street at which time there is construction of adjacent sidewalk." A October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1125 There was then a brief discussion of exactly what the motion should contain as offered by Mr. Scherer. Commissioner Earnest gained the floor and attempted at this point to clarify the issue. His feeling as he expressed it was, perhaps we need to defer the improvement requirement on Thomas Street and waive the requirement on 6th Street since we do not have an ordinance requirement for requiring the sidewalk. Commissioner Hawn inserted a statement that if there was not a motion on the floor he would like to offer one. But before Commissioner Hawn offered such a motion, the Chairman recognized Commissioner McCarthy. She asked a question as to why there would not be a need to do improvements on Thomas Street? David Scherer came to the lectern and proceeded to identify the street's current status and the fact this property does not take access from that roadway. Again Mr. Scherer offered possibilities that the Commission could simply reduce this issue to dealing with the Thomas Street frontage as to a waiver or deferral of that issue and leave the sidewalk issue totally out. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn for his motion. His motion was that the improvements on Thomas Street be deferred until such time as improvements of similar nature are required on properties adjacent along Thomas Street. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Sissy Brandon). FA October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6406 NAME: Parkway Motors PD -C Short -Form LOCATION: 12200 Block of West Markham Street DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Ron Tabor Joe White, Jr. Flake, Tabor, Turner & Kelly White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 0.71 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: C-3 ALLOWED USES: Auto Dealership (Mazda) (being rezoned to PD -C) No other use indicated. PROPOSED USE: Auto Sales VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• This tract is a remnant from the various actions that created the Rock Creek Parkway and later what is now Chenal Parkway. When Markham Street was realigned to the north, this triangle was created. Most of the time since annexation this lot has been zoned C-3. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create a commercial lot with one building and twenty-nine (29) parking spaces. The intended use is auto sales allied with the new Mazda dealer being developed across Markham Street. There will be no access from W. Markham Street. Vehicle access will be on Entergy Drive and an easement next to Luby Cafeteria. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lot is a raised island between Entergy Dr. and W. Markham Street. There are a few mature trees some of which could be saved with good design. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 This island fronts on Markham Street but has a driveway along the west boundary that will affect all aspects of the commercial use of the land. That drive has a large Entergy power line and easement, overlaying, that restricts usage. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The Birchwood Neighborhood Association and all abutting owners were notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. W. Markham Street is listed on the MSP as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from the centerline of Markham is required. 2. A 22.5' radial dedication, including the triangular piece across Entergy Court, is required at the intersection of Markham and Entergy Court. 3. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to W. Markham including sidewalk with construction of building. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two entrances off of Entergy Court and it needs to be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Entergy and Markham. 5. Close the private drive between Entergy Court and Markham and construct a commercial standard cul-de-sac at the terminus of Entergy Court. 6. Construct 5' wide sidewalk along Entergy Court and Markham at back of right-of-way. 7. Provide an eight foot deep back -out for cars at west end of parking lot. 8. All driveways shall be concrete aprons. 9. Markham has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 10. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: The existing 12" water main crossing this property may be farther east than is shown. This main should be field located. The existing waterline easement is not shown. Additional easement may be required. Fire Department: Review with Water Works on hydrant need for location. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. Nearest bus route at Bowman Road and Markham. Turns south to Wal-Mart. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers technically meet with the ordinance requirements. However, if this property were to have a typical "C-4" zoning for outdoor display no merchandise would be allowed to be displayed within the front 20 feet of the property. Instead, that area would be reserved for grass and shrubs. Curb and gutter or another protective border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• This site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan recommends commercial use. The commercial use is consistent with the Plan. Note this is a "C-4", Open Display, use which was not the intended use for this area. Three other PD -C "C-4" uses have been reviewed and approved, they were commercial and a PZD. Staff has some concern about continuing this practice. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the PD -c in its current form and suggest a new design approach that will address the need to maintain more open space while reducing conflict with the west drive. The closure and reuse of the west drive is strongly encouraged to have better vehicle display and lower impact visually. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Joe White was presented for the owner. Staff presented its comments and concerns about plat content and design. A lengthy discussion followed with the Committee asking a number of questions about this PD -C application. The Committee observed that plat and PD -C issues are closely tied, with the PD -C affecting the plats final configuration. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 The Committee discussed the elimination of the west drive to create a better lot, how the building lines could be modified to help the site buildability and parking arrangement. After closing comment by Public Works staff, the Committee forwarded the matter to the full Commission for resolution in conjunction with the plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard wood, of the Staff, for purposes of presenting the staff recommendation. Wood began the presentation by saying this item is paired with item #8 on the agenda. This item proposes the one lot subdivision plat and the item #8 is a planned development for purposes of locating a commercial use on the one lot. Wood stated that both staff and Public Works has some continuing questions about the design of this proposal; therefore, their retention of the item on the regular agenda. Wood pointed out there were no objections to this proposal, either the plat or the planned development and there were apparently no objectors in attendance of today's meeting. He stated there were a couple of informational calls from passersby and interested in what may be occurring. The Chairman then asked if the applicant would come forward and present item #2. Mr. Ron Tabor came to the lectern and introduced himself and Mr. Steve Smith with his partner Bill Carlton who are the prospective developers. He also introduced the architect for the project. Mr. Tabor offered some background on the companion project on the north side of Markham Street for the Mazda dealership indicating the status of that project and how they had worked through staff and through the Commission to develop the property. Mr. Tabor then offered a brief outline of the project, its location relative to neighboring uses and identifying the site as a somewhat unique property. He defined the abutting streets, the status of the easement between Entergy Court and Markham and the inability of this owner to remove that facility. He also described Entergy in its relationship to the streets. He further stated that there were some issues relative to landscaping and setbacks that they have addressed. They identified the type of use going on this property and the dealership involved and the project will be developed to high standards. There will be nice aesthetic features incorporated into the site because of some of the comments that have been raised by staff. He stated the plan would not take access to Markham Street but the private drive and Entergy Court would be utilized for their total access. 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 He extended his presentation to describe where the building had been previously sited on the plan, how they had moved it and how the building had changed in its character. At the conclusion of Mr. Tabor's remarks, the Chair asked if there was anyone present that wanted to add comments in favor of the proposal. The Chairman then asked if there were persons present in opposition. There were apparently none. Commissioner Brandon asked Mr. Tabor a question concerning the trees on the site and how they would be dealt with in this proposal. Mr. Tabor offered comments about the several trees that might be saved and those which would obviously have to be removed. A landscape contractor would be dealing with tree retention as well as the overall site of preparation and stated that they may come back and ask the city for a franchise to do enhanced landscaping within the adjacent right-of-way. The discussion then continued in length between commissioners and Mr. Tabor relative to saving various trees and how that might be accomplished. Commissioner Earnest inserted a question to the staff given what has been said and the commitments made as to whether or not the staff was willing to accept this proposal and change its recommendation. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, indicated yes. However, he expanded to say the staff would like to enhance landscaping along Markham by pushing the cars back somewhat. Mr. Tabor came back to the lectern and addressed this point by pointing out how the site plan has been and can be modified to incorporate the staff's additional requirements. Lawson stated that with this change and other items staff has worked out over the last couple weeks we can accept the proposal. Commissioner Putnam then asked a question of Mr. Tabor as to whether this issue is open display use. After a brief discussion about the use of the C-4 District versus the PCD District, Commissioner Putnam understood this was not a relative issue to the one he had been concerned with on Hwy. 10. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniel. Commissioner Daniel stated that he could not support this proposal. He indicated that he had previously been presented with another plan that is completely different from this one. He offered an extensive commentary on his concerns about people not following through on plans and then changing without commission involvement or observation of the amendments. Mr. Tabor pointed out this plan as presented is exactly what the developer will do if it is approved. Mr. Tabor then followed this remark with another extensive review of the proposal as it now exist. The concerns that were expressed by several commissioners and staff resulted in another comment by commissioners stating that we should 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 perhaps look at the protocol surrounding the manner in which applications are closed prior to a hearing. Commissioner Adcock pointed out that at the Subdivision Committee meeting it was specifically suggested to the applicant that they move the building from the east to the west end of the site to better retain landscaping and do less damage to the property. Commissioner Putnam then injected comments concerning how the Subdivision Committee was perhaps placed in difficult circumstance was dealing with the site plans. Jim Lawson instructed the Chairman that perhaps David Scherer, of Public Works, had comments to offer. Scherer's comments dealt with Entergy Court the manner in which it was constructed and how it was not dedicated as a public street, design problems on the corners with deficient radii, etc. Also, he pointed again to the undedicated driveway that connects two public streets along the west boundary of this site. Scherer indicated that there was a requirement for sidewalk along Entergy that had not been dealt with or either discussed at this point as well as dedication of sufficient right-of-way for this commercial street. He stated although this is a PD -C application, there is a preliminary plat attached which is item #2 of this agenda. This plat does require sidewalk and dedication of street right-of-way. He stated that Public Works recommends these items be provided for in the preliminary plat. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Joe White for purposes of discussing these potential waivers. He stated that this private drive connecting the two streets was required by city at the time the Rock Creek Parkway was created which was the forerunner to Chenal Parkway. He said this driveway was constructed because it solved a site distance problem. He stated Energy Drive was a private drive and with this narrow site dedication would impact the development. It would effect the number of parking spaces that could be gained as well as the landscaping. Jim Lawson inserted a comment at this point. City staff had looked at attempting to close this private drive between the two streets and found that it could not be done. Lawson stated that he felt the city should look at this as an existing condition and go on with this project. The Chairman asked for clarification on this since the recommendation apparently included the sidewalk and some comments from Public Works. He stated he did not see this item concerning dedication of right-of-way in the write-up. Lawson instructed the Chairman that on the sidewalk issue what the Commission needed to do was to recommend to the Board the waiver of the sidewalk and specifically state the City does not want the sidewalk. 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 The Chairman stated this issue needs to be clarified because there are no specific waivers requested in the application. For the next several comments, Mr. Tabor specifically stated he did not want to build the sidewalk along Entergy Court. Again, questions return to the private drive running between Markham and Entergy Court as to its status and how it might be dealt with. David Scherer, of Public Works, said he was simply trying to gain the status of this roadway as a properly dedicated street since it was functioning as such. He stated its functioning as such should be dedicated. He reiterated a prior comment saying that the sidewalk should be built and the right-of-way should be dedicated on Entergy Drive. He also stated they could request waivers of these, however, Public Works, recommendation remains the same. Scherer stated that the right-of-way that normally would be required for Entergy Court would be 60 feet, but the Commission could accept a less amount. Scherer stated the current street was a 36 foot pavement that normally requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Questions posed by Commissioner Hawn as to whether or not dedication could not simply occur from the centerline to the existing improvements. He asked whether or not the developer would be willing to dedicate that. A lengthy discussion followed during which Mr. Tabor finally announced they could dedicate the portion of the existing street that would be appropriate to their side. Commissioner Hawn asked for verification as to what this waiver would fall under the plat or the PD -C. It was determined that it would be the plat, item #2 on this agenda. Commissioner McCarthy raised a question about the possibility of the future owner and protecting the dedication of the right-of- way. She was assured that if it is accomplished on this plat, then this would be the case. Lawson clarified if the developer at this point dedicated the built roadway and this is the right- of-way the city will accept and maintain from now on. This dedication would be the existing road width. In response to Commissioner McCarthy•s question about is there some way to ever capture the 60 feet and the response was no. At this point, the Chairman instructed the Commission and staff that Commissioner Hawn would attempt a motion on this application. He began by making a motion that included only item #2 be approved as filed with the applicant agreeing to dedicate the private drive to its current constructed width along the west boundary and that sidewalks not be constructed along Entergy Drive. Commissioner Earnest injected a thought prior to the vote that there are all kinds of issues outlined in the write-up which are contrary to the motion that is on the floor. The Chairman and others pointed out this was understood. The vote on 7 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6406 Commissioner Hawn's motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Hawn was then recognized for purposes of offering a motion on item #8, the PD -C application. Commissioner Hawn offered a motion for approval of the site plan as modified in conformance with the staff's comments. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6405 NAME: Borkowski PD -R LOCATION: #12 Towne Park Court DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Tad and Sally Borkowski Robert C. Lowe #75 Valley Estates Cove MCGetrick Engineering Little Rock, AR 72212 11225 Huron Lane 221-3165 Little Rock, AR 72212 223-9900 AREA: 0.21 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: MF -18 ALLOWED USES: Residential at 18 units (being rezoned to PD -R) per acre PROPOSED USE: 4 small lot attached townhomes VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• This lot was platted for multifamily use along with all of the multifamily lots around Towne Park Court. All of the lots share common development characteristics such as shared drives, one way street, rear parking with grassy yards in front. These multifamily units are probably close to 20 years old but generally well maintained. A. PROPOSAL• To create four lots that are the same width as the dwelling units and leave the side yards and rear yard as common open space. The units would be sold much like real estate except for the common holding. They will not be condominium so long as land is part of the title. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A gently sloping lot from rear to the front. The parking spaces are in the rear and accessed by way of a shared drive with the lot on the west. There is a two story brick and frame four unit apartment in place with lawn covering the October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6405 balance of the lot. A screening fence lies along the north property line. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: One received. A call from a neighbor who expressed no concern after hearing the proposal. The usual sign and notice was provided. The Sturbridge Association was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No issues to discuss. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: Relocation of water meters will be required. If lot split creates a private line situation. Fire Department: Will there be changes in the fire detection, alarm sprinkler, etc.? County Planning: No Comment - inside city LATA• No response. Nearest bus service is Route 8, Rodney Parham Road Va mile south. All day service. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment, existing developed site. Issues• Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Rodney Parham District. The Plan recommends Multifamily use. There is no land use plan issue. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the application subject to providing: 1. A better graphic with dimensions; 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6405 2. Describe changes that may occur with shared drives; 3. Provide Bill of Assurance to cover all the issues attendant to common wall units and lots, the building maintenance, access, etc. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Borkowski was present. He offered a brief discussion of his proposal. The Committee offered a few questions about sale and occupancy. David Scherer of Public works offered comments on the narrow one way street. Mr. Borkowski stated he would follow-up with his engineer to develop accurate information on the site plan and begin to develop the plat. He said he would respond to the staff issues by Thursday, October 16. The Committee forwarded the proposal to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) Staff reported there were no objectors and that the planned development was in order. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion on the Consent Approval Agenda was passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 3 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6404 NAME: Dorbin PCD LOCATION: 3500 Block of Ludwig Street DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR: David W. Dorbin White-Daters and Assoc. P. O. Box 45571 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72214 Little Rock, AR 72201 312-9385 374-1666 AREA: 0.59 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-3, C-3 ALLOWED USES: One family and various retail uses PROPOSED USE: Retain two existing dwellings and construct carry out/drive thru food sales. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The four lots in this application have been used as residential since annexation except that the owner of the house on W. 36`h has apparently operated a home occupation of some type. The current C-3 zoning on the corner two lots was established in the early 1960's after a land use plan was developed for Barrow Addition. A. PROPOSAL: To create a commercial food sales lot on the corner of Ludwig Street at West 36`h Street while retaining the two residential structures. The house at 8912 West 36`h Street may contain a business. However, this has not been established. At this time, the proposal does not include other business activity. (Mr. Dorbin, indicated there may be a business activity at 8912 W. 36`h Street. That could change the entire plan if factual.) October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6404 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: These lots are fully developed as single family sites with two large side yards on the corner. This corner parcel or yard area is open with little or no vegetation. The site has some grade running east from a high point on the west line. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None submitted at this writing. The Barrow Neighborhood Association was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from the centerline of W. 36`h Street and 30 feet from centerline of Ludwig and a 20' radial dedication at intersection is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to 36`h Street (24 ft. from centerline) and Ludwig (18 ft. from centerline) including sidewalks. 3. Improve the corner curb radius to 31.5 feet with handicap ramps. 4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Driveways are to be 100 feet from intersection. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer available not adversely affected. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations. County Planning: No Comment - inside city LATA: No response. Rosedale Bus Route runs down W. 36`h Street. P, October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6404 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Trees and shrubs are required to be planted along both sides of the perimeter of the proposed driveway. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from the vehicular traffic. Issues: Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Boyle Park District. The Plan recommends Single Family use. The site is currently zoned "C-3" General Commercial and "R-2" Single Family. The John Barrow Neighborhoods Area Plan concentrated the commercial use at the major intersection (36`h and John Barrow Road) and discouraged further commercial along 36`h Street. The commercial was to be oriented to John Barrow Road. This proposal includes single family use along both 36`h and Ludwig Streets, thus stopping the commercial use area. While the proposal does not follow the letter of the Plan based on the existing zoning pattern, it does attempt to meet the spirit of the Plan. The commercial portion of the PCD is closest to the commercial area in the Plan. Most of the commercial area is already zoned C-3 and some C-3 zoned area would be used for single family use as the Plan intended. The PCD must be carefully reviewed to assure that the single family use proposed (existing) is protected and further commercialization along 36`h Street is not encouraged by this development. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: In the absence of detailed information on use, site design, staff recommends deferral of the request to allow the owner to work with staff and Public Works. The staff questions unanswered are: 1. Indicate type, height and location of all ground mounted signs. 2. Show standards of Master Street Plan for W. 36`h Street. 3. Define accurately the real need boundary for commercial and consider removing the two houses from PD -C and leave R-3 Single Family to meet the land use plan. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6404 4. Suggest commercial lot be 80' X 142' to give side yard for house. 5. Redesign parking, maybe move to avoid conflict with entrance. 6. Better define drives and parking by dimension. Make two lane at drive thru window for passing. 7. Define use of deck, no. of tables, seats, etc. 8. Erect a sound board 8' tall on west side of drive to baffle sound from driveup speaker as well as at menu board. 9. Indicate areas for landscaping. 10. Answer issue of business in house facing W. 36th Street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The applicant was not present at the meeting. Staff and Public Works presented the lists of unanswered questions and ordinance requirements. The Committee discussed the Plan briefly. Staff indicated that calls would be made to gain resolution of these issues before October 30`h. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that this applicant had failed to provide proof of notice to the adjacent property owners and there was apparent opposition from some neighborhood representatives. Staff recommended that this item be deferred to the next scheduled Subdivision Hearing on December 18, 1997. This will afford the applicant sufficient time to address the concerns previously raised by staff and Public Works as well as being able to notify the neighborhood properly. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that this item should be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -6051-B NAME: Arkansas Systems Long -Form POD LOCATION: Northeast corner of Chenal Parkway at Technology Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Hank Kelley Tim Daters Chenal Technology Ctr., LLC White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 11.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-2 ALLOWED USES: General Offices PROPOSED USE: Various retail and office at a mix of 75% retail. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This tract was preliminary platted on July 18, 1996 along with lots east and south. One lot out of the plat and a segment of street was final platted for a post office. These lots were platted for office use and zoned office in accordance with the land use plan. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A retail/office development as follows: As part of Arkansas Systems Office park we would like to develop a mixed office and retail development on the site. The purpose of the development is to provide services to the immediate neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. we anticipate over the next five years that the population within our office park could grow from its current level of approximately 600 people to in excess of 1,800 people. By having some retail services and office services available within the immediate area we will be providing a convenience to that population as well as the immediately surrounding neighborhood. This should help contain some of the traffic on the Parkway that would otherwise travel to the Chenal- October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B Bowman area. Those uses that we would like to be able to lease to include: antique shop beauty shop or barber cigar, tobacco shop clothing store florist shop dry cleaners pickup station copy center physical therapy clinic card shop restaurant (non drive through) art, music, speech, drama studio bakery book or stationary store candy store drug store hobby shop art gallery Real Estate/insurance travel agency gift shop bank camera shop medical clinic duplication shop jewelry store photography studio Catering (for commercial purposes) optical shop We would anticipate that we would lease the southern end to a banking institution with drive up facilities, a restaurant in the middle of the property, and a dry cleaning drop off station on the east end. We think several smaller offices would be interested in locating in the property such a State Farm or Farmers Insurance Agency, a title company, a real estate office, a medical or dental office, a blinds and antique office, a computer sales, service and training office. As far as the percentage of allocation between these various groups we would anticipate that over the life of the property there would be an equal balance (50/50) between those retailers who wanted to serve the office park and the immediate neighborhood and the smaller ground level office users. However, in order to have a viable property we would request the flexibility to increase the retail portion of these permitted uses to a maximum of 75%. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared. There is some road work and construction in the area of the post office site. The land is currently sloping from east to west with a 30 foot plus change in elevation. There is a low area along the northwest quadrant that has drainage issues for resolution. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Must get conditional letter of map revision by FEMA for 100 year floodway prior to issuance building permit. 2. Submit street plans for Technology Drive and Systems Drive. Oa October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B 3. Dedicate a 10• sidewalk/utility easement along Chenal Parkway. 4. Add an 11 ft. lane on Chenal Parkway. Provide design of streets, including striping plan, conforming to the MSP. 5. Remove existing driveways on Chenal in order to construct proposed new driveway entrance. Driveway must be designed per Chenal Parkway standards. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Grading permit and a development permits for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371- 4740. 9. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 10. Chenal Parkway has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 11,000. 11. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. 12. Repair or replace any damaged improvements in the right- of-way prior to occupancy. 13. Systems Drive requires reconstruction of earthen dam with certification by an independent geotechnical engineer. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: On site fire protection required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrant locations - nearest off site, all on site. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No bus service F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used, their locations must be shown and an eight foot high opaque wood fence or wall provided to screen three sides. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many existing trees as feasible. Additional credit can be allowed when saving trees of six inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Chenal District. The Plan recommends Office use for the site. The request is to allow a commercial center to be built along with an office building. This is in conflict with the Plan. The commercial center is immediately north of the planned commercial area at Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway. The center would be along Chenal Parkway and is an attempt to continue commercial use north along Chenal Parkway. The request is in conflict and staff cannot support changing the Plan to encourage further stripping of Chenal Parkway. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Although the plan presents some good and commendable goals, the staff cannot support the use ratios proposed. We feel the number for commercial is too high especially in light of strip center design that is oriented outward to Chenal Parkway instead of inward to serve the several large office projects. We recommend denial of the project as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Hank Kelley was present as was Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer. Mr. Kelley made a presentation, offering some design characteristics that he felt supported the request. The Committee raised questions about the drainageway adjacent and the traffic circulation plan. Mr. Daters explained moving the proposed driveways, now shown at two sites, and making one entry off Chenal. Staff indicated this was more of a use issue than anything and the Committee does not discuss appropriateness of use. Public Works staff briefly touched on several items in their comments. The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission as more a land use plan and zoning question than site plan. 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood, of the Staff, for purposes of offering the staff recommendation. Wood briefly identified the issue and stated that there was one letter in the file supporting the proposed development and were no objectors of record. Wood then passed the issue to Jim Lawson, of the Staff, for purposes of offering a position statement on this proposal. Lawson identified this project as a somewhat unique proposal and the area for this development is shown on the land use plan for offices. He pointed out this site is approximately 62 acres and that it is all being developed for offices. Under the 0-2 District, a certain percentage of office structures is permitted for accessory commercial which is by ordinance 10%. One office building has already been constructed without the 10% and another is proposed. The proposal of the developer is to take the 10% allotment for those buildings and assemble it in this one development. Lawson proceeded to describe when the project was originally presented that there were certain commercial features staff objected to. Staff has worked with the developer through the last several weeks to come to an agreeable presentation. He stated that the staff still supports this as an office area and taking the commercial off the parkway frontage and assembling it in the B-1, B-2, and B-3 elements of the building we feel is in compliance with the intent of the land use plan. Lawson stated that the final numbers are 12.2% of the gross floor area of the several office buildings are represented here as accessory commercial. He stated staff feels this is now a reasonable request and we have been working with them for some time to amend the design and list of permitted uses. Lawson then stated that perhaps the applicant would like to come forward and clarify some of the issues. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Lawson if this modified the staff recommendation that was presented in the agenda? Lawson responded by saying yes it did. At this point, the Chairman recognized Mr. Hank Kelley who came forward to present the applicant's position. Mr. Kelley proceeded to describe the area in which this proposal is to be located, the various buildings that are in place. He pointed out there will be three or four additional office buildings in this area. These buildings will increase the working population and this increase will be approximately from 600 to 1,800 persons. The result of such increases will cause people in the office buildings to request that certain support uses be provided such as personal services within the area. Mr. Kelley pointed out the relationship of the workers in this area and that they have significant travel time in distance for personal services such as the lunch period. He stated that he 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B does not have an objection from any of the surrounding developed areas. In fact, they are in support of the proposal. He stated the property immediately to the south of this development is zoned C-3 and that one of the features of this proposal is the buffering action that it would provide between that commercial and the office development to the north. Mr. Kelley pointed out the packet which was handed out to the Commission contain several things and he would like to summarize the issue at this point. He stated there was a sign component that they worked with staff on and would provide a unified look and design for signage. He also pointed out the brick work on the structure will tie in with the brick work on the existing office building for Arkansas Systems. The signage will be subdued in lighting and will be internally lit. He stated that he wanted the appearance of his property in the front to enhance the leasibility of the office spaces developed in the future. He then moved his discussion to the list of uses that had been offered. He pointed out that permitted uses of the 0-2 category would be oriented to the parkway. This is a change from the earlier submittal which typically oriented the commercial uses to the parkway frontage. As a compromise in the presentation the 0-2 uses would be fronted on the parkway. Mr. Kelley pointed to the plan and illustrated that section B-1 on the drawing would perhaps be a restaurant and sections B-2 and B-3 would be uses that would compliment the office park and also feed off some of the traffic in the area. Mr. Kelley offered at this point that the architect, Mr. James Williams, was present and could further expand on the issue. Also Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer was present if there were site questions. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Earnest for comments. Commissioner Earnest stated it appeared that between Mr. Kelley and staff, staff had withdrawn its recommendation of denial and the excellent design and compromise design now deals satisfactory with the concerns that staff expressed. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, said that was correct and through the discussion of this issue Mr. Kelley had tied in another office building to this project and committed there will not be commercial in this building. What it represents is that the commercial in this building complex will be approximately 12.2% of the gross floor area of the several office buildings and 10% would have been by right. Commissioner Earnest is correct by saying staff did not support this project earlier. Staff is now comfortable with the proposal and it is truly a mixed Office Commercial development. Looking at the several proposals and that it does not conflict with the adopted land use plan. At this point, Mr. Kelley introduced Mr. David Payne of Arkansas Systems who came forward to offer comments of support. He 6 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B offered general commentary on the current use of his site, his development plan, the type of pedestrian, roadway and activity in the area. The plan proposes that employees in the area would be able to walk to certain commercial facilities to do banking and shopping. The Chairman then pointed out that he did have a request card from Mr. Daters and Mr. Williams. Mr. Kelley stated that they were here for information or to answer questions as needed. Chairman Lichty then asked if there were those persons present who wish to speak either for or against this issue. There were none. Chairman Lichty then turned the discussion to members of the Commission and asked if there were comments. Commissioner Berry posed a question to staff as to what the required parking ratio is per thousand square feet for this development. Jim Lawson stated that the requirement is 1 per 400 and that staff review noted this plan does meet code. A brief discussion then followed involving staff, Commissioner Berry and others as to the appropriateness of large open parking areas and the provision of what appeared to be an excessive number of parking spaces. It was pointed out to Commissioner Berry that some of the tenants for some these office buildings do require a large number of parking spaces. Commissioner Berry closed his comments on this subject by stating that a primary concern is that parking lots be pedestrian friendly. The use apparently does not give that appearance by offering controlling elements plus it would cause pedestrian movement through the parking areas without conflict with automobiles. Staff asked that Mr. Kelley come forward to address this question. Mr. Kelley stated they would definitely address the pedestrian friendly issue. Then, a comment was made by Commissioner Berry concerning is there a need by the developer to exceed parking ratios to the extent that it is represented. Mr. Kelley responded by saying the parking needs are not from the retail but from the office users. He pointed out today's office users attempt to gain more employees in a given area of floor space and some employers want to go as small as one employee per 10 by 10 floor space. This would cause some spillover between the office and the commercial parking areas. He stated that the parking density was driven more by the office users in this complex. Mr. Kelley stated that for this commercial element the parking provided is about 1/3 normally provided if a conventional office building were constructed on this site. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Brandon for a comment. She posed a question to Mr. Robert Brown, of the Staff, as to whether or not the landscaping is appropriate and meets code. Mr. Brown came forward and identified himself. He stated his 7 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-B review indicated that the project was in compliance. They do meet the buffer requirements and the current layout is an improvement over earlier submittals and what they have done so far is very good. The Chairman posed a question to Mr. Kelley concerning uses and stated that some of the uses on the list could become quite as intense. He specifically pointed to some of the institutional uses. Mr. Kelley responded by saying that was not their target market. He proceeded to point to several of the listed uses in the 0-2 and stating they were not uses that they would market. Chairman Lichty expanded his comment to say is it conceivable that there are some of those listed uses which could be excluded? Mr. Kelley stated that he could volunteer to do so. He indicated first off that the college dormitory, fraternity or sorority and seminary and perhaps if UALR wanted to place a facility there as a business extension office. They would like to provide such. A convent or a monastery could also be eliminated. Chairman Lichty at this point inserted a comment about the Commission constantly getting into discussion and debate about mixed uses of office and commercial. Getting into permitted uses sometimes are more burdensome and more intense than intended. Mr. Kelley then turned to his 0-2 District list of uses eliminating a lodge, mortuary or funeral home, nursing home or convalescent home. He offered that this list of items could be eliminated. Chairman Lichty asked Jim Lawson, of the Staff, if staff could review that and determine if there are other uses that might be offensive. Mr. Kelley might want to remove them. Mr. Lawson stated yes staff would make such a review. At this point, the Chairman said he would entertain a motion on this subject. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion which stated that the Commission accept item #11 as offered by the applicant with staff considerations. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -4461-B NAME: Phil -Cord Amended PD -I (Short -Form) LOCATION: 9100 Block Sibley Hole Road DEVELOPER• Billy Acord for Acord Packaging Cisco, Inc. P. O. Box 7657 Little Rock, AR 868-1707 AREA• 3.92 acres ZONING: PD -I ENGINEER• None 72217 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ALLOWED USES: Cutting, gluing and printing of boxes, die making shop with seven employees. PROPOSED USE: Add additional office and warehouse space. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Currently has five year deferral of street improvements on Sibley Hole Road beginning February 5, 1995. BACKGROUND: This property was established as a PD -I in February of 1995 for one building and a small future expansion area. This site is 822 feet east to west and 315 feet were developed. The balance was to be retained open space and natural. Mr. Alan Beasley, representing the owner, approached staff in September this year for a permit to expand and was advised he would be required to amend the PD -I and had no opposition, to filing. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests two changes in the 1995 site plan and PD -I. These are: First, Acord Packaging requests an addition of 25, to the rear of this structure for warehouse use. The owner will increase the parking and landscape to support this additional footage. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4461-B The second item regards the remaining portion of property not addressed in the original submittal. The Acord's wish to construct a single story structure that would be similar height and width as the previously approved structure. We proposed the use of this building for 70% warehouse and 30% office. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped on the east half but contains some mature timber. The west one half has the Acord Building and parking lot. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. There is no organized neighborhood association. However, staff located a nearby resident that has been active in the area and provided notice. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from the centerline of Sibley Hole Road is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to Sibley Hole Road including sidewalk with construction of building. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. S. A grading permit is required if more than one acre is disturbed. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371-4740. 6. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No response. Water: Water main extension required. Fire Department: OK as submitted. County Planning: No Comment - inside city 2 October 30, X997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4461-B CATA• No response. Route 17 Mabelvale serves the I-30 frontage road (one-way) with all day service and morning shuttle. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with ordinance requirements. When averaged out though, portions of the proposed land use buffer along the east side drop below the full requirement of 41 feet. A minimum of 60% of the required buffer must remain in its natural state. The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many trees as possible. Additional credit can be allowed when saving trees at six inch caliper or larger. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen this property from the residential properties to the north and east. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. G. ANALYSIS• The site is in the Otter Creek District. The Plan recommends Mixed Office Industrial use. The request is to expand an existing use and Planned development. The addition development would be less intense land use than the existing area. The expansion is in conformance with the spirit of the Plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the planned developed amendment subject to the applicant addressing the staff and Public Works comments and requirements. The site plan deficiencies noted by Planning Staff are: 1. Need more dimensions on all aspects. 2. Show building height. 3. Show building use break down. 4. Where are dumpsters, if any? 5. Screen against church. 6. Is fire hydrant existing? 7. Show truck docks, if any. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4461-B 8. Mark all parking spaces by number and relate to Zoning Ordinance. 9. Show the agreed upon street standards for Sibley Hole Road. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the plan and issues developed in review. Public Works offered its requirements. The staff indicted that the application presented no serious issues and that contact with Mr. Alan Beasley would be made, and the Thursday deadline applied to respond to committee write-up. (Staff called Mr. Beasley on Friday the 10`h and he said he would follow-up as required.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman asked that staff present its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the project stating that it was an expansion proposal of a previously approved planned development. This would add additional warehouse space at 70% of the new building and 30% of the new building being office. Wood pointed out that the triggering activity which brought this issue to the Commission was a request for a building permit for the first phase. This phase covered a larger footprint than was authorized. The applicant is before the Commission to gain approval for this expansion as well as presenting his phase 2 development. Following this information, Wood pointed out that the applicant had submitted the proof of notice Wednesday of the meeting week which is later than that required by the bylaws. A separate vote would be required to waive that late submittal if the Commission desired to do so. Chairman Lichty asked staff if that was what staff intends by keeping this item on the regular agenda. Wood responded this was only reason it was retained on the regular agenda. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Allen Beasley. Mr. Beasley came forward and stated he was here for the application. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on this matter. There were no objectors. The Chairman asked if there was a motion on the floor. 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4461-B Commissioner Daniel offered a motion to the effect that the Commission accept the bylaws late and the bylaws be waived in this instance. The motion received a second. A vote on the bylaw waiver produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The Chairman then asked if there was a motion on the application. Commissioner Adcock offered that the Planning Commission approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded. A vote produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The application was approved. October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -4050-B NAME: Berry PD -R Short -Form LOCATION: 209-211 North Summit Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Del Berry None 301 N. Summit Street Little Rock, AR 72205 374-6835 AREA: 10,100 sq. ft. NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-4 ALLOWED USES: Single and duplex dwellings PROPOSED USE: Triplex in same building, existing VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This application is the product of an application to rezone this lot to R-5 in July of this year. The Commission by 5-5-1 vote rejected the request. The owner appealed the denial to the City Board on August 19, 1997. At that time it was determined that both staff and the neighborhood could support three units on this lot as a PD -R and the request was modified to a PD -R for Planning Commission review. A. PROPOSAL: To convert the current structure to three units. It now exists as a duplex with space for the third unit without constructing an addition. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: An occupied duplex building on one residential lot with off- street parking. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4050-B C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The Capitol View-Stifft Station Neighborhood was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: None E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: On existing sewer service. APDL: On existing service. Arkla: On existing service. Southwestern Bell: No response. Water: On site fire protection may be required. Fire Department: No response. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA• No response. Two all day bus routes serve West Markham both ways. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No Comment. Issues: Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS• No comment at this time. However the Planning Division recommended maintaining single family when presented with the R-5 request. At this time the staff will support the PD -R approach. It should be pointed out that the immediate area contains a number of duplex units. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the request with a use limitation of duplex or triplex only. E October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4050-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Berry was present. He offered brief comment's on his application. Staff offered very little except history of the issue. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Planning Commission was presented with a recommendation from staff that stated this planned development is in order. There are no continuing issues. However, there is one letter of objection from an adjacent property owner who stated that he previously opposed this as a zoning matter and continued to oppose it as a planned development. However, the writer was not in attendance at the meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 3 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z -5770-A NAME: MaxMart - Short Form POD (RESTORE EXPIRED APPLICATION) LOCATION: On the north side of Highway 10, approximately '/ mile west of Pinnacle Valley Road at 14,924 Highway 10 ENGINEER• Barksdale McKay Tim Daters River City Energy Co. White-Daters and Assoc. 3100 Interstate 30 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-4825 374-1666 AREA: 1.82 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 to POD PROPOSED USE: Office PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a Planned Office Development District in order to develop a 1.82 acre tract with two office buildings, each proposed to be one story, 6,000 square feet in size. A drive along the west property line, with parking between and in front of the buildings, is proposed. Leaving the heavy forest cover along the perimeter of the property is planned, and the applicant anticipates leaving much of the area in its natural state. The rear, northern -most building is to be Phase I of the development and will house the applicant's Rivercity Energy Company offices. The front, southern -most building, will be built as Phase II; however, no definite date is established for its development. That building would be built as a tenant - occupied office building when an appropriate tenant is located and when it is economically feasible to proceed with this phase. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a Planned Office Development District on property to be acquired by the applicant. Requested is approval of a POD which will include two, one-story, 6,000 square foot buildings with October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -5770-A associated drives and parking. The requested uses include all permitted uses in the 0-3 zoning district. A phased development is proposed, with the rear, northern -most building, the drive, and a portion of the parking being Phase I; the front, southern -most building and the remainder of the parking being Phase II. There is no time -table established for the development of Phase II. Much of the site is proposed to be left in its natural state, heavily wooded and forested. The signage is to be located at the entrance to the property and will comply with the applicable standards and requirements. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded and overgrown. The current zoning is R-2, with R-2 zoning existing on the surrounding properties. There are residences on the properties to the east and west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office reports that the Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable to this development. A 6 foot sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage will be required to be constructed. Engineering indicates that the driveway needs to be moved to the east side of the property, and that the drive needs to approach Highway 10 at a 90 degree angle. Water Works indicates that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater indicates that no service is currently available to the site without an sewer main extension. Site Plan review reports that the Landscape Ordinance will require 6% of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscaped. A 6 foot high opaque screen (i.e., a good neighbor fence or evergreen shrubs spaced every 3 feet) is required along the north, east, and west perimeter of the property. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department indicated that an additional fire hydrant may be needed. E October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -5770-A D. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The establishment of the POD will involve a preliminary and final plat. The applicant should anticipate complying with this requirement. E. ANALYSIS• The proposal includes provision for extensive buffering of the site from the abutting residential uses. The Planning Staff indicates that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends this property to be a Transition Zone. The proposed use is appropriate, and the Floor Area Ratio meets the plan requirements. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1993) The applicant, Mr. Barksdale McKay, and the engineer, Mr. Joe white, were present. Staff presented the request to the Committee and outlined the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The applicant indicated that he would furnish the items requested. The Committee briefly discussed the proposal and referred the item to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 4, 1994) The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent, and no abstentions. HISTORY: (OCTOBER 2, 1997) The application was forwarded to the Board of Directors for a hearing on February 1, 1994. At that meeting there were no objectors. The Board approved the POD application by unanimous vote. The Ordinance No. 16,586 with a three year term to develop. The developer was unable to produce a final product within that time limit, therefore, the ordinance is invalid. He now wishes to reinstate the same project, same design with an additional three years. 3 October 30, X997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5770-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) There was no discussion of design in as much as the applicant proposes no change from the prior approval. The item was forward to the full Commission for final action. NOTE: The staff notified Westbury and Westchester Neighborhood Associations of this hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff reported that there were no letters of objection and no one in attendance objecting. This issue was simply a reinstatement of a prior approved planned development that had expired. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that this item should be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z -6051-C NAME: Arkansas Systems Zoning Site Plan LOCATION: Systems Drive at Kirk Road, SW corner DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Chenal Technology Ctr., LLC Joe White, Jr. C/o Hank Kelley White-Daters and Assoc. 425 W. Capitol Ave. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 374-1666 AREA: 7.47 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-2 ALLOWED USES: General Office PROPOSED USE: Same in a single four story building of 109,760 sq. ft. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Deferral of improvements on Kirk Road (unspecified time) BACKGROUND: The lots involved in this site plan were established by plat approval of the Planning Commission on July 18, 1997 at which time the overall plat was approved from Kirk Road to Chenal Parkway. The plat at that time created four lots on preliminary where one large lot is now proposed. The 0-2 zoning district which requires this site plan review was approved on October 3, 1995. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project is a proposed four story office building containing 27,440 square feet per floor with a total of 109,760 square feet on 7.47 acres of land. The property will front on Technology Drive, a new street being installed by the Chenal Technology Center developers connecting Chenal Parkway with Arkansas Systems Drive. Immediately south of the project is the new post office under construction. North of the project is the Arksys Office Building Project. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -66051-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is gently sloping from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. The elevation change is approximately 25 feet, the abutting street system consists of Kirk Road which is substandard and two streets proposed but as yet unfinished. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Kirk Road. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements Kirk Road including sidewalk with construction of:building. Also, construct full street improvements for the remainder of Technology Drive and all of Systems Drive. 3. Systems Drive requires reconstruction of earthen dam with certification by an independent geotechnical engineer. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Grading permit and a development permits for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371- 4740. 6. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 7. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering 340-4856. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: On site fire protection required. Fire Department: OK as submitted. Counter Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. No regular daily service. P" October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -66051-C F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet with ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used their locations must be shown and an eight foot high opaque wood fence or wall provided to screen three sides. The City Beautiful Commission recommends saving as many existing trees as feasible. Additional credit can be allowed when saving trees of six inch caliper or larger. Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the site plan as submitted subject to Public Work requirements, resolving the Kirk Road improvement waiver and the following: 1. If approved will amend overall preliminary plat and approved driveway locations. 2. Need detail on parking lot lights. 3. Height of building in feet. 4. Detail on project signs, need plan for building and freestanding. 5. Resolve landscaping issues with Bob Brown. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Hank Kelley was present as was Mr. Tim Daters, the engineer. The Committee asked a few questions. Staff offered its comments as did Public Works Department. The only issue of consequence on this plan is the street improvements waiver. The Engineer will work to resolve the design questions. The item is forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized staff for purposes of presenting the staff recommendation and the application. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the application and stated that the only reason for retaining this matter on the regular agenda is that there is a request for deferral to an unknown time of the street improvements along Kirk Road. Wood pointed out that the site plan is in order. The Chairman recognized Mr. Tim Daters, of White-Daters Engineers who came forward and stated that he represented the application. Mr. Daters stated that the applicant would like to defer the improvements along Kirk Road until adjacent properties which would be across the street to the east or property lying to the south toward Chenal Parkway is developed all the way down to Chenal Parkway. He stated that either of these two things happening would trigger the requirements to build the improvements for this site. He stated that they did not put a year or a time on their request. If either one of these events happen they would be willing to proceed with constructing their Kirk Road improvements. He stated it was not advisable at this time to improve this section of Kirk Road since much of it is an unimproved segment lying between this area and Chenal Parkway. The Chairman recognized Jim Lawson, of the Staff, for response to Mr. Daters' comments. Lawson stated staff did not have a problem with this. Chairman Lichty then asked the staff if they had a choice of the two proposals offered. Lawson asked Mr. Scherer of Public works for a response. Scherer came forward and offered a brief commentary on the condition of the existing Kirk Road and its relationship to the Kroger Center that was recently approved to the south. He pointed out that Kirk Road is currently not a substantial street. Mr. Scherer posed a question to the engineer, Mr. Daters, as to whether their circumstance would be when Arkansas System's drive is connected to Kirk Road and would they be willing to build the Kirk improvements. Mr. Daters attached another condition to that being the two previous comments about improvements on the east side of Kirk Road or extending south to Chenal Parkway. At this point, Mr. Scherer stated what he believed to be is now offered by the developer as the condition for construction, fronting improvements on Kirk Road and not allowing connection of this development to Kirk Road until which time adjacent development occurs on Kirk Road for a period of 5 years or whichever occurs first. Jim Lawson offered his opinion at this point. He stated perhaps we would want to do both or either of the two. Mr. Scherer 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-C stated that if Arkansas Systems takes access to Kirk Road with the large amount of traffic that might potentially utilized that street, they need to do the improvements. Chairman Lichty inserted a thought that he believed this is a real need. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Berry. He asked if the developer had a site plan of this project, a color rendering perhaps. Commissioner Berry inserted some comments at this point concerning parking and parking ratios as well as asking the developer what was presented by this plan on a 1,000 sq. ft. basis. Mr. Kelley pointed out that it was being driven by the proposed user and it is approximately four spaces per 1,000. A general discussion occurred at this point involving Commissioner Berry, Mr. Daters and others about parking ratios and the possible need for amending the ordinance. Commissioner Berry also pointed out it did not appear to be much landscaping on this site as on the other drawing adjacent. He offered concerns that this site plan did not appear to offer pedestrian ways, sidewalks or movement areas. Mr. Daters offered that the site plan did offer the required buffers, spacing and separation. Mr. Daters offered that in light of what is happening around the lake and said they would incorporate pedestrian areas within the drawing. He stated issues concerned with pedestrian ways would be dealt with. Jim Lawson pointed out that the City's regulations at this time do not address pedestrians from sidewalk issues within large parking areas. The City's current regulations set bare minimums; however, the developer can build more space and address that kind of concern in a project. Commissioner Earnest was identified at this point for comment. He stated that he felt a unified development plan would be appropriate for this area. Commissioner Adcock was then identified for comment. She asked a question as to whether or not a certain element on the drawing was a drive through. The drawing that she apparently was addressing or had pointed to was the previous application. It dealt with the Mixed Use Office Commercial which lies to the west of this site. She was told it was the other site and not the one currently being discussed by the Planning Commission where the possible drycleaner location would be placed. Her apparent concern was that this was a drive-thru restaurant and she was assured that it was not. The restaurant was in another portion of the building. A continued discussion between Commissioner Adcock and the developer occurred where she had several questions about the previously discussed item. Mr. Kelley came forward and answered her questions concerning access drive-thru and the relationship 5 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6051-C between several buildings. The Chairman then brought the discussion back to the issue at hand which is item #15 and stated again that the only issue before the Commission was the deferral of the improvements on Kirk Road. The Chairman asked staff if the discussion had resolved the manner in which the improvements would be deferred. Staff's response was yes. The Chairman pointed out that a motion on this item at this time should deal with that understanding on the deferral of Kirk Road as well as accepting the various comments that are in our write- up for today. Commissioner Hawn was recognized for a motion. He made a motion that the Commission approve the application as presented with the deferral of street improvements along Kirk Road until the applicant takes access on Kirk Road or adjacent property on Kirk Road are developed or 5 years, whichever occurs first and all other conditions meet. The motion received a second. A vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 6 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z -4662-C NAME: Boen Addition Lot 1, Zoning Site Plan LOCATION: 10600 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Larry Boen Family Trust Pat McGetrick 10600 Col. Glenn Road McGetrick Engineers Little Rock, AR 72204 11225 Huron Lane Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 AREA: 4.81 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: I-1 ALLOWED USES: Light Industrial, Warehouse PROPOSED USE: Office and warehouse with office at 60% of gross floor space. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: • 50 ft. front yard in place of required 70 ft. • 25 ft. rear yard in place of required 45. ft. BACKGROUND: This lot was left vacant at the time of development of the original building development on the lot next door to the east. The site was zoned I-1 on June 17, 1986. Since I-1 zoning is a site plan review district both lots in the plat have been required review by the Commission. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project is comprised of 4.50 net acres and is currently zoned I-1. A one-story building is proposed containing 62.285 sq. ft. with a proposed usage of approximately 60% office and 40% warehouse. One hundred eight (108) standard spaces and four (4) handicap spaces are proposed. Colonel Glenn Road will be widened for the full length of the project with sidewalks as required. No street variances are being requested. The developer proposes to close the existing driveway to the west side of the existing development (also owned by this developer) with access coming from the new facility on Lot 1 Boen Addition. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4662-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A mostly cleared site with moderate grades that can work with the neighboring lot to the east. The land to the north is generally vacant except for a cellular tower, Sam's Discount to the west and a developing warehouse district to the east and south. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Colonel Glenn Road is listed on the MSP as a principal arterial. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 55 feet from centerline prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide design of widening Colonel Glenn Road, including striping plan, conforming to the MSP. Construct one half street improvements to Colonel Glenn Road including sidewalk all the way to Sam's to make one continuous lane prior to final platting of lots. 3. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Combine the two middle entrances into one. A total of three entrances are allowed for the two lots. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. A grading permit is required if more than one acre is disturbed. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371-4740. vertical cuts are limited to 15 feet: A 10' terrace is required. 6. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 7. Provide for street lights, contact Traffic Engineering, 340-4856. 8. Colonel Glenn has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 5800. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: No response. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No response. Water: On site fire protection required. Fire Department: Show fire hydrants. County Planning: No Comment - inside city 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4662-C CATA: No response. Nearest all day bus service at Shackleford Road Y4 mile. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape• Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements except for the building landscape area. The Landscape Ordinance requires a three foot wide building landscape area between the public parking area and building. There is some flexibility with this part of the ordinance. However, a minimum of one third of this requirement must be satisfied. Because of the difference in elevation along the northern perimeter, a cross section should be provided detailing the method of slope treatment that will be employed. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Issues• Planning Division: G. ANALYSIS: No comment, conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plan and variances subject to conformance with Public Works and Landscape Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present as project engineer. Mr. McGetrick presented his application and responded to Committee questions. Planning and Public Works staffs offered their comments. McGetrick responded to some of these questions by saying he may reverse the parking plan to separate truck and car traffic area. He said if this is done he will submit the revision by Thursday, October 16 as required by staff. There being no negative comments on this proposal the item has forwarded to the Commission for final action. 3 October 30, X997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4662-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that there were no issues attendant to this application. There were no objectors but information calls only. After a brief discussion, the Commission determine to place this matter on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: S-1164 NAME: K -Mobile Home Park Preliminary Plat and Site Plan LOCATION: 11700 Block Stagecoach Road (south side of street) DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• W. A. Jones B. T. Armstrong 9 Don Drive 1621 N. Pierce Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72207 445-3316 663-8180 AREA: 16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None Public 1250 Private ZONING: R-7 Mobile Home Park PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None needed - except sidewalk variance. None were constructed in prior phases. A. PROPOSAL• To develop a new mobile park (rental) with a private street system, 73 lots plus recreation space. Access is restricted to the current entrance to the west, no drive onto Stagecoach. The proposal indicates retention of a larger drainage area in the flood plain that will be permanent open space. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This tract has little remaining natural foliage most of the tract has been filled and before that it was a horse farm. This developer has several hundred mobile home spaces along Stagecoach and County Line Road. This will be another phase. Lying to the south of the site is the former outlet mall now a flea market. North across Stagecoach Road is a property being developed by the city as a soccer park. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1164 Easterly of the site is a large creek and floodway. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. Otter Creek Community was notified. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Stagecoach Road is listed as minor arterial on the MSP. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline of Stagecoach Road. 2. Submit street plans conforming to the MSP prepared by a registered professional engineer. Construct half street improvements for Stagecoach Road for the frontage of property. 3. Design streets to conform to city standards including sidewalks. Submit street plans prepared by a registered professional engineer to Bruce Kemmet, 371-4819. 4. Provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4819. 5. Temporary turnarounds must be provided at all dead-end streets. 6. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 7. Grading permit and a development permits for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371- 4740. 8. Provide a survey showing limits of 100 year floodway and floodplain on property. 9. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Main extension required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No response. Water: Submit plans for proposed water lines and fire protection system for Water Works review. Fire Department: Show hydrant locations on and off site. County Planning: No Comment - inside city CATA: No response. No service this side of I-430. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1164 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No comment, ordinance does not apply. G. ANALYSIS: No comment, conforms to land use plan. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plan and plat subject to resolving issues identified by Public Works Department, locating the required playground and storage facility, and respond to the following: 1. Show owner and source of title. 2. Complete engineer certificate. 3. Indicate and describe floodplain and treatment to set finished floor elevation. 4. Show floodplain as a tract in the plat. 5. Lot 80 limit to single wide. 6. Lot 64, label as postal facility. 7. Show drives as public and service access easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Mr. Mike Jones was present representing the owner. Mr. Jones responded to committee questions by saying he understood staff requirements and except for sidewalk he can comply. There was a discussion involving David Scherer of Public Works as to what is required. He will discuss with owner further and report to Planning Commission. The plan and plat were in generally good order. The Committee forwarded them to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The Chairman recognized the staff and asked that the staff recommendation on this item be presented. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the proposal stating that it was a subdivision plat as well as a site plan review for a mobile home park. Wood stated that the item was retained on the regular agenda for purposes of dealing with a sidewalk issue raised by Public Works as well as the developer not having clearly identified the areas on the plat to be utilized for boat and RV storage as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Wood stated staff had recommended approval of the project. He also pointed out there were no objectors present. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1164 The Chairman recognized Mr. B. T. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong came forward and identified himself as the engineer for the project. He offered a brief overview of his proposal and then moved to the subject of sidewalks. He pointed out that sidewalks had not been required by the City on several other phases of this large mobile home park. He also pointed out there was some discussion about requiring additional right-of-way and improvement on Stagecoach Road. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that this property has a very narrow frontage about 20 feet on Stagecoach Road for dedication of right-of-way. He offered that he had some level of confusion about exactly what the city required with respect to construction on Stagecoach Road. He indicated that this project is an addition on the back -end of phase 3 and takes access through that project. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works. Mr. Scherer came forward to respond to the concern expressed by Mr. Armstrong. He pointed out that the developer was proceeding to develop a private street with a public street standards thereby it is the view of Public Works that it requires sidewalk construction. This street, its length and design does not qualify as a minor street but a regular standard street, therefore the sidewalk improvement. Even though they are a private street, they should have a sidewalk constructed. Mr. Scherer then moved his comments to the issue of Stagecoach Road right-of-way and improvements. He pointed out that the developer in developing the two larger projects immediately to the west did create frontage access and did dedicate right-of-way and build improvements. He expanded on this comment and said with this project having some frontage on Stagecoach Road, they had the option of building it or providing an in -lieu contribution unless the improvements are waived by the City. There was a brief discussion about how much the improvement would cost and about how many linear feet of improvements were involved. Mr. W. A. Jones came forward and addressed the issue offering comments on his design and the quality of his project. At the conclusion of Mr. Jones' remarks, the Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak against this proposal. Commissioner Putnam gained the floor at this point and asked Mr. Jones if he had sidewalks on any other element of his development. The response was no. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, supported this response and stated there were four or five other phases and sidewalks had not been required. The engineer of the project stated that with these concrete streets the insertion of a sidewalk in the area for backing these heavy trailers from the roadway onto the lots, the sidewalks would be damaged. In a response to a question from Chairman Lichty about the quality of the streets that was proposed and a standard, David Scherer 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1164 responded that the streets were up to standard. He said the proposal was acceptable. The Chairman at this point responding to a statement from staff moved the discussion to the next and remaining item to be dealt with. This item is the ordinance requirement for a certain percentage of the project being retained as a storage area for boats, RV's and such. Staff pointed out that the ordinance requires 50 sq. feet per mobile home for a total of about 4,200 sq. feet for this site. Mr. B. T. Armstrong came to the lectern to address this point and identified on the drawing an area that was labeled to be utilized for that type of activity. He pointed out that there is 2 or 3 acres at the east end of the two streets where eventually they would be tied together and could be used for recreation and/or storage. Richard Wood pointed out that this needs to be specifically defined on the drawing as to area and bounded within the boundary line of the plat to be filed. Several discussions occurred at this point off the microphone and were not readily decipherable. Chairman Lichty pointed out that the area identified by Mr. Armstrong was shown on his drawing as to be future lots or another phase of the development. Chairman Lichty asked that Mr. Armstrong specifically delineate the lots that would be in the next phase versus the required areas that he had identified previously. Staff and commisson briefly discussed for a moment the lots involved and that would be the eastern boundary of this phase that would abut the area designated for recreational area and playground and storage area also overlapping phase 6. Chairman Lichty asked Mr. Armstrong if he could not amend his drawing to clarify the points discussed. Richard Wood stated that we could work this out but the plan and plat has to specifically designate these required areas. The Chairman at this point then asked if there was a motion on this proposal. He recognized Commissioner Hawn and his motion was that the Planning Commission accept the application as submitted recommending a waiver of the sidewalk and accept the roads as planned. The area east of lots 30, 83, and 19 should be fenced and designated as storage as required. There is an understanding that there is an in -lieu contribution for the 20 feet of frontage on Stagecoach Road. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 5 October 30 1997 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z -1997-B LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• Christ Lutheran Church and School - Conditional Use Permit 315 S. Hughes Street Christ Lutheran Church and School/Fred Perkins PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the phased expansion of the existing church/school onto adjacent R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The existing church/school site is located on the east side of Hughes Street, approximately three blocks south of W. Markham Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: Single-family residential property is located south of the existing Christ Lutheran Church site, with multifamily and single-family zoned property to the east. Single-family residential property also exists to the west, across Hughes Street and further north across W. Markham Street. One single-family residence and another church are located to the north, at the southeast corner of Hughes Street and W. Markham Street. The University Mall is located approximately 800 feet to the east. With proper screening of the residential properties to the east and south, the proposed church/school expanded development should have no adverse effect on the general area. The Apache Crime Watch Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing existing church drives from Hughes Street and a controlled October 3U, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1997-B access from W. 3=d Street. There will be no direct access to the site from W. Markham Street. The existing residential drives from W. Markham Street will be removed. The existing church and school uses with proposed expansion require 271 off-street parking spaces (170 for the church and 101 for the school - all phases). A total of 319 parking spaces is proposed. Parking will be constructed to accommodate each phase of construction. 4. Screening and Buffers: Proposed new areas for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements except for a portion of the western strip which drops below the minimum requirement of 4 feet. The revised site plan submitted by the applicant on October 15, 1997 complies with this requirement. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen this site from adjacent residential properties to the east and south. 5. Public Works Comments: 1. This portion of Markham Street is listed as a minor arterial with reduced standards. Dedication of right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline is required. 2. Provide design of W. Third Street extension and turnaround including sidewalks. Construct extension of W. Third Street and turnaround with construction of building. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. A grading permit is required if more than one acre is disturbed. Contact Melvin Hall at 371-4461 or Steve Loop at 371-4740. 5. Prior to building permit provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations. Contact Bruce Kemmet at 371-4740. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1997-E 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: L. R. Fire Department - Show fire hydrant locations. L. R. Wastewater - Sewer main extension required with easements to serve all phases. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for Capacity Contribution Analysis to assure adequate capacity is available. L. R. Water Works - On site fire protection required. Contact the Water Works regarding meter size and location. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant, Christ Lutheran Church and School, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the phased expansion of the existing church/school facilities onto adjacent R-2 zoned property. The church recently acquired the 6.45 acre tract immediately north of the existing church development. The property is on the south side of W. Markham Street in the 6600 block and was formerly known as Fox Orchids. The current developed church property is zoned 0-1 and the Fox property is zoned R-2. The church is submitting a long-range Master Plan that provides for current needed facilities and expanded facilities to accommodate future growth of the church and school. It is the intent of the church to expand their facility in phases over a 15-20 year period. The church currently sponsors a preschool through eighth grade school. The proposed expanded facilities will accommodate additional sections to these grades, as well as provide additional space for church programs and ministries. The school now accommodates a preschool and two grade sections each from Kindergarten through the Eighth Grade. The proposed long range plan will allow four sections each for K through Eighth. A proposed freestanding preschool facility will house the Kindergarten classes, as well as three sections each for three and four year olds, a Mother's Day Out program, and an after school program. The proposed anticipated phasing of the Master Plan is as follows: Phase I - Area A (An initial one-story Family Life Center containing 5 to 6 church meeting rooms, a multipurpose Fellowship Hall, church kitchen and 8 church and school classrooms and school music facility). It is proposed to phase the classrooms into 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1997-B school use by using two to replace the temporary classroom building and using the remaining six to add one or possibly two grade sections per year over a three to,six year time frame. Extension of W. 3=d Street will be constructed with phase I. This will be a gated, controlled access. Phase 2 - Area D (A one-story preschool facility) Phase 3 - Area B (Expansion of the Phase 1 Family Life Center. A two-story facility containing a regulation gym with dressing rooms, 18 to 20 church meeting.rooms to also serve retired/Sr. Citizens/Adult Day Care programs and craft programs, and youth and adult recreation facilities). Phase 4 - Area C (Two-story Jr. High Classroom facility for 7th and 8th grades) Area E - (Lutheran Park, playgrounds, and the existing residential structure) will be developed in stages during the different phases. Parking and drives will be constructed as phases are developed. A first phase parking area with 50 to 60 parking spaces will be constructed along with a temporary drive through Area B. Additions to the existing church building will also be constructed during the various phases. One existing residential structure remains on the Fox Orchid Property and is scheduled to remain in use. The church has been using this structure for church uses under a temporary conditional use permit and desires to continue using the structure for church programs under the permanent C.U.P. Access to this structure will be from the church property only with no access to Markham. In the Long -Range Plan, this structure will eventually contain the church facilities, maintenance offices, storage space, and covered van parking, while still maintaining a residential appearance. A temporary classroom building also currently exists at the south end of the existing church building. The church intends to continue to use the structure as a classroom, on and off, during the various phases of construction until completion of permanent classroom spaces. At that time the temporary structure will be removed from the site. An athletic field currently exists at the southeast corner of the property. This field will not be lighted 4 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1997-B or have permanent stadium seating. Its use will be strictly for playground and daytime and school sports activities. The existing low rise movable bleachers will remain in use. The existing church and school uses with proposed expansion require 271 off-street parking spaces (170 for the church and 101 for the school - all phases). A total of 319 parking spaces is proposed. Parking will be constructed to accommodate each phase of construction. Any parking lot lighting will be low- level and directed away from adjacent residential property. Other than normal school and church activities, the church will operate the Family Life Center (Area A and B) daily with some nighttime usage, generally concluding by 10:30 p.m. Jr. High competition games in the gym (Area B) will generally occur on weekday nights with an occasional Saturday game. All building heights and setbacks comply with zoning ordinance requirements. Any proposed signage must also comply with ordinance requirements. With the ordinance required screening and buffering of the church/school site from the adjacent residential properties, the proposed development should have no adverse impact on the area. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 4. Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away from adjacent residential property. 5. Any additional signage must comply with city ordinance requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Fred Perkins was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the project. 5 October 3u, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -1997-B David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed the Public Works comments with the Committee. This included the additional right-of-way dedication for W. Markham Street and the extension of W. 3=a Street. Staff reviewed the Utility and Fire Department comments with the Committee and applicant. Staff also noted that the landscape strip along the west property line drops below the minimum requirement of four feet. After further discussion relating to the project, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. Staff informed the Commission that one (1) letter was received stating traffic concerns. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 6 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z -2851-A LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• Alta Mere - Conditional Use Permit 301 N. Shackleford Road Westchase Plaza, LLC./ Ken Davenport PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the operation of an auto glass tinting and auto alarm installation business within the existing building at 301 N. Shackleford Road. The property is zoned C-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is within the existing westchase Plaza, located at the northwest corner of W. Markham Street and I-430. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed site is located near the intersection of w. Markham Street and Shackleford Road. This general area is commercial in nature, with uses ranging from a service station to enclosed retail sales. The proposed auto glass tinting and auto alarm installation business will be adjacent to Interstate 430 and should have no adverse impact on the general area. The Birchwood and Beverly Hills Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The existing commercial strip center can be accessed from W. Markham Street and Shackleford Road. The center requires 176 parking spaces for the entire site. A total of 235 parking spaces exists on the site. October 3u, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2851-A 4. 5. 7. 8. Screenina and Buffers: No Comments. Public Works Comments: No issues. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No Comments received. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of an auto glass tinting and auto alarm installation business within the existing commercial strip center (Westchase Plaza) at 301 N. Shackleford Road. The property is zoned C-3. The applicant proposes to utilize approximately 3,813 square feet of the existing 66,250 square foot commercial strip center for the business. The proposed business will be located at the southeast corner of the center, immediately adjacent to Interstate 430. The applicant also proposes to install one 16 foot by 7 foot overhead door on the east side (I-430 side) of the building. This will allow vehicle entry into the building for service. The existing commercial strip center requires 176 parking spaces. A total of 235 parking spaces exists on the site. Adequate parking exists on the site to serve the proposed business. The proposed hours of operation will be from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Any new signage will comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements. With the proposed business being adjacent to Interstate 430, there impact on the general area. The located approximately 800 feet to Shackleford Road. Staff Recommendation: located immediately should be no adverse nearest residence is the west, across Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application as filed. 2 October 3u, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2851-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Ken Davenport was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Davenport offered the hours of operation as noted in the "Staff Analysis". Staff noted that the existing off-street parking on the site complies with City Ordinance. Mr. Davenport explained that a 16 foot by 7 foot overhead door will be installed on the east side of the building to allow vehicle entry for service. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 3 October 3u, 1997 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-6408 NAME: St. Bartholomew Catholic Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1600 Marshall Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Diocese of Little Rock/Bill Beattie PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a fellowship hall building to serve an existing church. The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located at the southwest corner of Marshall Street and W. 16`h Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The St. Bartholomew Catholic Church is located immediately south of the proposed fellowship hall site, with other church facilities located to the east across Marshall Street. Arkansas Baptist College is located just further east, with commercial zoning and uses located along Dr. Martin L. King Drive. Single-family and two-family residences are located north, south and west of the church site. The proposed fellowship hall should have no adverse effect on the general area. The Central High and Downtown Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The applicant proposes to access the site with a drive from W. 16`h Street and a drive from Marshall Street. The church's seating capacity (100) requires 25 off- street parking spaces. The church currently has 29 off-street parking spaces across Marshall Street to the east. An additional seven (7) parking spaces is proposed with the fellowship hall addition. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6408 4. Screening and Buffers: A portion of the proposed street landscape buffer drops below the minimum six foot width required by the Zoning Ordinance and the 4 foot minimum width required by the Landscape Ordinance. The revised site plan submitted by the applicant on October 15, 1997 complies with this condition. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. Public Works Comments: 1.20 foot radial dedication required at Marshall, 16`h Street, and 17`h Street. 2. Dedicate of right-of-way to 10 feet from centerline of alley and improvements to alley if being used for access to property. 16, wide of asphalt with 2 - thick surface course over 7- base. 3. Provide an 8 ft. deep back -out for cars in parking lot. 4. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards with any planned construction. 5. Improve the corner curb radius to 31.5 feet with handicap ramps on 16`h and 17`h Streets. 6. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 7. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Fire Department - Show fire L. R. Water Works - Contact meter size and location. Entergy - A 15 foot easement perimeter of the property, 7. Staff Analysis: hydrant locations. the Water Works regarding is requested around the The applicant, St. Bartholomew Catholic Church, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a fellowship hall building to serve the existing church development. The property, located at the southwest corner of Marshall Street and W. 16`h Street, is zoned R-3. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6408 The proposed fellowship hall will be 4,000 square feet in area. The structure will be one story in height and will exceed all ordinance established minimum setbacks. The applicant has stated that the new building will be used for various church functions such as meetings, classes and social events. The hours of operation will be typical church hours: activities on Sunday and one or two evenings per week. The church's seating capacity (100) will not change as a result of this construction. Therefore, no additional parking is required. The church's seating capacity of 100 requires 25 off- street parking spaces. The church currently has 29 off-street parking spaces across Marshall Street to the east. An additional seven (7) off-street parking spaces will be constructed with the fellowship hall addition. No new signage or site lighting is proposed with this application. With compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinances, this project should have no adverse impact on the general area. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public works Comments 2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Bill Beattie was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed the Public works concerns with the Committee. Right-of-way dedication and improvements to sidewalks were discussed. Staff noted that a portion of the street side landscape buffer drops below the six foot minimum width. 3 October 3u, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6408 Mr. Beattie stated that the site plan would be revised to show the six foot buffer. He also stated that the four parking spaces at the rear of the building which take access from the alley would be removed from the plan. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 4 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-6409 NAME: LOCATION• Morgan - Conditional Use Permit 1007 W. 7th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Dennis W. Morgan PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for retail sales within the existing building at 1007 W. 7th Street. The property is zoned I-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the south side of W. 7`h Street, just west of Chester Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is located in an area of mixed commercial, office and industrial uses. The proposed gift shop should be compatible with the general area. The Downtown Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site can be gained by utilizing an existing driveway from W. 7th Street. The existing site contains no legal off-street parking, and has a non -conforming relationship to the number of ordinance required off-street parking spaces. Based on the previous use of the building as office, which required 19 off-street parking spaces, the site has a non -conforming status for insufficient off-street parking. The proposed gift shop/office use requires 21 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from ordinance off-street parking requirements for two (2) spaces. There is one-hour on - street parking along W. 7th Street. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6409 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: Repair the concrete apron at driveway entrance and pave a portion of the driveway. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No Comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a gift shop within the existing building at 1007 W. 7`h Street. The property is zoned I-2. The applicant has stated that the gift shop will be located within the two-story (single - level) portion of the building with an office in the one-story portion. The existing building has been vacant for approximately two (2) years. Past uses of the building include an advertising office and a furniture store. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for a gift shop to allow the sale of T -Shirts, jewelry, posters, household decorative items, lamps, clocks, figurines, etc. The hours of operation will be from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Any new building signage will comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements. There is a small gravel parking area along the west side of the building which could allow for employee parking, however, no legal off-street parking (minimum stall size and maneuvering area) exists on the site. Based on the last use of the building as an office, which required 19 off-street parking spaces, the site has a non -conforming status for insufficient off-street parking. The proposed gift shop/office use requires 21 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the ordinance off-street parking requirements for two (2) spaces. There is one hour on -street along W. 7th Street in this general area. The proposed gift shop should prove to be compatible with the general area, given the mixture of non-residential uses that currently exists. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6409 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comment 2. Staff recommends approval of the variance request for reduced number of off-street parking spaces. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Dennis Morgan was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Morgan gave the proposed hours of operation for the business as noted in the "Staff Analysis". Staff explained that Mr. Morgan would need to submit a letter requesting a variance for insufficient off-street parking. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had worked out a written agreement with Vino's restaurant to lease 21 parking spaces at the northeast corner of West 7th and Chester Streets. Therefore, no parking variance was needed. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 3 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: G-23-277 Name• Location• Owner/Applicant: Reauest STAFF REVIEW• Exclusive Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment - Block 113, Original City of Little Rock Block bounded by Broadway, Arch, W. 8`h and W. 9`h Streets. Coulson Oil Co./ Robert M. Brown To exclusively abandon the north 200 feet of the alley right-of-way within Block 113, Original City of Little Rock. The abandonment includes easement rights. 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way There is no public need for this alley right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The alley right-of-way is paved and is currently being used as a through access. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the alley right-of-way will be incorporated into adjacent property for the development of a new convenience store with gas pumps. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The general area is made up of a mixture of commercial, office and light industrial uses. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-277 7. Neighborhood Position All abutting property owners as well as the Downtown Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities Entergy - No objection to abandonment. Relocation of existing utilities and additional easements required. Arkla - No objection. No easements required. SW Bell - No objection to abandonment. Relocation of existing utilities required at applicant's expense. L. R. Water Works - No objection. No easements required. L. R. Wastewater - No objection to abandonment. Relocation of existing utilities and additional easements required. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to Coulson Properties Ltd. And DeRoy Properties, LLC. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this alley right-of-way will have no adverse effects on the public welfare and safety. STAFF NOTE• The applicant is requesting an exclusive abandonment (this includes easement rights). The applicant must work out details with Entergy, S.W. Bell and L. R. Wastewater regarding the relocation of existing utility lines and dedication of additional easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive alley right-of-way abandonment subject to compliance with the utility comments as noted in paragraph 8. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 9, 1997) Robert Brown was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. 2 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-277 Staff made note of the various utility company comments and requirements related to this application. After a general discussion relating to the future development of the property, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) Robert Brown submitted a letter to staff stating that the signature of the two abutting property owners were not obtained on the petition. Therefore, the application must be withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda and forwarded to the Board of Directors as an adversarial abandonment. The Commission was informed of Mr. Brown's letter and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. The item was withdrawn by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 3 October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION Item No. 23 SUBJECT: Establishing Criteria for prioritization and selection of infrastructure projects. ACTION REQUESTED: Planning Commission endorsement of a resolution prepared by the Public Works Department. HISTORY: This is a follow-up on the brief presentation by Chandra Russell, Director of Public Works Department at the meeting on October 2, 1996. Public Works is in the process of developing a list of projects to present to the Board of Directors for selection for a bond issue. The City has selected bond consul for the proposed $16 million bond issue. $10 million will be available for capital improvement needs throughout the City and $6 million will be available for low moderate income areas (CDBG). The CDBG project list is being developed with assistance from ten redevelopment area planning committees. Public Works will aide these ten areas with technical support for development of their priorities for street, drainage, and special projects. The $450 million in infrastructure needs of the City will be data based and a ranking will be provided for each capital request. The development of this ranking criteria is the issue for consideration by the Planning Commission. Presented to each commissioner at the October 2 agenda meeting was a preliminary list of screening criteria to be used when ranking infrastructure needs. The criteria list for street, drainage, and special projects is intended to include all issues relevant when ranking these needs. Public Works requests support of this list of criteria through passage of a resolution. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION AND SELECTION OF STREET, DRAINAGE AND OTHER PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock currently has infrastructure needs with deferred maintenance and new construction in excess of $450 million, and. WHEREAS, Mayor Jim Dailey appointed an Infrastructure Task Force in 1996 to study infrastructure needs in the City of Little Rock, including all available data, statistics and associated information, and The Infrastructure Task Force is to develop an action plan that takes the City of Little Rock into the 2151 Century with regard to the quality of its infrastructure, and WHERAS, the Infrastructure Task Force recommends developing a new Capital Improvement Program and Planning processes that will use the expertise and broad representation of the Planning Commission for guidance in implementation of comprehensive Capital Improvement Program and Planning processes, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has authorized issuance of $16 million in revenue bonds to support the infrastructure needs of the City, and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Works has developed criteria for selection of street, drainage and other projects based on sound engineering principles, expressed interests of neighborhood associations and their residents, and issues related to overall development needs of the City, therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: The attached criteria shall be used for prioritizing and selecting street, drainage, and other projects for inclusion in the City of Little Rock's Capital Improvement Program. G1IBill -M--111 ATTEST: APPROVED: STREET PROJOCT °ate ----------------------------------------------- Pro)ect Limfta i 4-----------------------------� ----------------- Master Street Plan Ciaaaitication Existing: Pavement and Width ROW Engineering Issues Estimated Cost Project Length (linear feet) Planned Width (feet BC - BC) Change in Traffic Count % MSP(% ADT Design Volume) Floodway 1 Floodplain Flooding History Congestion (Metroplan Rating) Crash Rates Death Rates Maintenance Costs Neighborhood Issues Number of Homes (abutting project) Bus Route Neighborhood Priority Target Area Master Bike Pian (Class) Development Issues Matching Funds Development Potential (linear feet) Deferrals (linear feet) Waivers Granted (linear feet) Traffic from Planned Projects Other Comments: "We're Proud of Our Works!" 1D# ISTREET PROJECT Word�� DRAINAGE PROJECT !Prolect Limtta-------------------------------------- � ------------------------------------------------ Exist3ng: Conditions Easement / ROW Engineering Issues Design Type Estimated Cost Project Length (linear feet) Design Storm Event Highest MSP Street Crossing Floodway / Floodplain Zone Flooding History Maintenance Costs Neighborhood Issues Number of Homes (abutting project) Neighborhood Priority Target Area Development Issues Matching Funds Development Potential (linear feet) Waivers Granted (linear feet) Other Comments: ,)ate "We're Proud of Our Works!" ID# IDRAINAGE PROJECT Word SPECIAL PROJE" nate ----------------------------------------------, t-ro)ect Limits , i ---------------------------------------------- Engineering Issues Design Type Estimated Cost Project Length (linear feet) Neighborhood Issues Number of Homes (abutting project) Bus Route Neighborhood Priority Target Area Development Issues Matching Funds Development Potential (linear feet) Other Comments: "We're Proud of Our Works!" 1D# ISPECIAL PROJECT Word October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 24 NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment Burlingame valley Planning District LOCATION: 17024 Burlingame Road REQUEST: To change an area from Single Family to Commercial SOURCE: Jerry Kocinski STAFF REPORT: At the request of a property owner, a plan amendment review was initiated. The property owner requested a Single Family area be changed to Commercial. Planning Staff reviewed the existing land use and zoning patterns in the area, as well as the Land Use Plan. The area in question is surrounded by Single Family land use and R2 zoning. Burlingame Road from Colonel Glenn to Kanis is predominately large lot residential/farms and undeveloped woods. The nearest non-residential land use designation is approximately one and a half miles away at the intersection of Burlingame and Colonel Glenn Roads. In the past two years there has not been any land use change requests. Although the property in question is on the planning boundary, to change the Land Use Plan at this location to Commercial would introduce a major change and would not be compatible with the existing land use pattern. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff can not recommend a land use change from Single Family to Commercial . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) Shawn Spencer, Planner II, presented the item. Mr. Spencer stated that staff has not received any letters or phone calls in favor of or against the request. He reviewed the background of the item for the Commission. The applicant, Jerry Kocinski, was present. Mr. Kocinski stated that he did not know that his property was within the planning jurisdiction when he started his business in November 1992. Staff informed the Commission that the area in question was brought into the planning jurisdiction in February 1992. Mr. Kocinski stated that his business is restoring antique October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont. motorcycles and that he has less than ten customers a week visit his business. There was nobody to speak in favor or against the item. Commissioner Hawn asked staff when the land use plan was last reviewed in the district. Walter Malone, Planning Manager, reviewed the process of implementation of extraterritorial zoning in 1992. The land use plan was reviewed along Burlingame Road from Kanis to Stewart in October, 1997. The only commercial use on this four mile strip of Burlingame, was the property owned by the applicant. Discussion followed. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to deny the request for a land use amendment and encourage Staff to review the land use in the Burlingame planning district. Motion was seconded. Motion carried. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, asked the Commission to expunge their previous action and make a new motion in the positive. A motion was made to expunge the previous action. Motion seconded. Motion carried. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to approve the request for a land use amendment. Motion was seconded. Motion did not carry. (0 ayes, 9 naves, 2 absent) 2 October 30, 1997 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: Z -6380-A Owner: Tommy Hilburn Applicant: British Cars of Little Rock Location: 7316 Kentucky Avenue Request: Waiver from Right -of -Way dedication requirement and Boundary Street improvements Purpose: Provide employee parking and overflow inventory space for adjacent auto sales company. Size: .16± acres Existing Use: Vacant, overgrown lot SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Backyard Burgers drive through restaurant; zoned C-3 South - Multifamily residential; zoned R-5 East - Auto sales lot; zoned C-4 West - Doctors office and shopping center; zoned C-3 BACKGROUND The site is in the West Little Rock District. It was approved by the Planning Commission on October 2, 1997 for rezoning from C-3 to C-4, however, the applicant did not request a waiver to right- of-way dedication and street widening. The applicant is now requesting a waiver for right-of-way dedication and street widening. The applicant has agreed to completing the street section including curb and gutter on the frontage to match curb line on either side of the property which is less than ordinance required commercial street standard of 20 feet of right-of-way from centerline versus the commercial street standard of 30 feet. However, the applicant agrees to dedicate a parallel 10 foot drainage and utility easement. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: (OCTOBER 2, 1997) 1. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of Kentucky is required. 2. For construction of parking lot construct half street improvements to commercial standards including sidewalks. October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6380-A 3. Submit two copies of site grading and drainage plans, and street plans to Bruce Kemmet, 701 W. Markham, prior to construction. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 2, 1997) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and the condition offered by the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request, with the condition as offered. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to there being no access from this property onto Kentucky Avenue. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing 27 foot wide street handles traffic safely and does not warrant additional widening with this project. The applicant agrees to provide connectivity of existing curbs on each side of lot frontage, improve drainage, and construct a sidewalk. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of applicant's request for a substitution of a 10 foot utility and drainage easement beyond dedication of right-of-way to 20 feet from centerline. Approval of a waiver for the width of street to allow construction to the current width of 27 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 30, 1997) The staff reported to the Commission that all issues attendant to this application have been resolved and that the staff recommends approval of the request as set forth in our staff recommendation. Public Works Department announced this was the agreed upon resolution of the issue they had worked out with the developer. The Commission determined that this item should be placed on the Consent Approval Agenda. A motion to that affect was made. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The application is approved. 2 C3 0 / v W cc W 0 z 0Cl) r c U C'3 z Z z J 1 0- r - ON r - ON d` M IZILU F- ¢ 0 0i LU z Q J COMz Q 2 N 0¢ J 0cc: m 0 Z= te -0-co cc Q W LLI U �>7 w w < 0 � z o ¢ M CC= z¢ 0= z 0 z o= WwQOCU¢¢DDUU¢ 2 m w m m= 0¢ d J 2 A 2 ri fT] Q Q' z LU cn m Q I LU Q z w �I October 30, 1997 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:07 p.m. D to ' l"' h i C a rman 1