Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pc_12 18 1997sub
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD DECEMBER 18, 1997 4:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven in number (all members). II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting Minutes of October 30, 1997 and November 13, 1997 were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Richard Downing Craig Berry Rohn Muse Judith Faust Hugh Earnest Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Bill Putnam Mizan Rahman Obray Nunnley Pam Adcock Members Absent: None City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA DECEMBER 18, 1997 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Dorbin PCD (Z-6404) B. Chenal Place Preliminary Plat (S-1158) C. Chenal Place Site Plan (Z -5802-A) D. Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal Planning District II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Keener Valley Preliminary Plat (S-1169) 2. Chenal Valley Tract 304 (S -867 -EEE) 3. Chenal Valley Bayonne Area Preliminary Plat (S-867-FFF) 4. Capitol Lakes Estates Revised Preliminary Plat (S -1100-A) 5. Baptist Health - Kanis South Revised Plat (S -1162-A) 6. Boulevard Terrace Addition/Replat (S-1168) III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 7. Biggs PD -C (Z -6386-A) 8. Davis Petroleum PD -C (Z -6179-A) 9. Kocinski PD -C (Z-6403) 10. YMCA PCD (Z-6418) 11. Wilson PCD (Z -6332-A) 12. Blair PD -C (Z -4167-D) 13. Coulson Oil PCD (Z -4411-B) Time Extension IV. SITE PLANS REVIEW: 14. Carrington Park Subdivision Site Plan Review (S -867 -DDD) 15. Eubanks Car Wash Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1167) Agenda, Page 2 V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 16. Westpark Executive Building - Conditional Use Permit (Z -2232-A) 17. Lewis - Conditional Use Permit (Z -5464-A) 18. Hughes - Revised Conditional Use Permit (Z -5672-A) 19. Hodges - Conditional Use Permit (Z -6181-A) 20. Helms - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6423) 21. Bearden - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6424) 22. Lutheran High School - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6425) 23. N.A.M.C. - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6426) 24. Deltic Water Tank - Conditional Use Permit (Z-6427) VI. OTHER MATTERS 25. Northwest Territory - Water Main Extension (G-40-14) 26. Chenal - Water Main Extension (G-40-15) 27. Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain District Single Family to Suburban Office 28. Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance, public hearing and comment. December 18,1997 ITEM NO.• A FILE NO.• Z-6404 NAME• Dorbin PCD LOCATION: 3500 Block of Ludwig Street DEVELOPER• David W. Dorbin P. O. Box 45571 Little Rock, AR 312-9385 AREA• 0.59 acres ZONING• R-3, C-3 SURVEYOR• White-Daters and Assoc. 401 Victory Street 72214 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: None 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.) December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (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"' 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"' 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 CATA: No response. Rosedale Bus Route runs down W. 36"' Street. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (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"' and John Barrow Road) and discouraged further commercial along 36"' Street. The commercial was to be oriented to John Barrow Road. This proposal includes single family use along both 36"' 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"' 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"' 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. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (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. 36`h 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. STAFF UPDATE: Staff continues to contact the applicant by phone and mail and he has not responded. We recommend the item be withdrawn from consideration. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6404 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Planning Commission that the applicant has apparently abandoned this application because contact has become impossible. The calls were not returned and written responses are not answered. The Commission determined that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal from further consideration. A motion to that effect was made. The motion included a statement that the application be withdrawn without prejudice which will permit refiling the application if the applicant so desires within one year. A vote on the deferral motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 5 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: B 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: 5 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. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (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 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (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 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1158 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 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (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 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (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. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-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. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was present and offered an update on the plan/plat. The plat was modified to delete one lot and create a large lot that met the C-2 requirements. Staff of planning and Public Works indicated that the plat has address all concerns but one. The extension of a deceleration lane east bound on Chenal Parkway. The engineer for the project indicated he would work on this with Public Works. There remains only one waiver, that's on the interior setback. The item is forwarded to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Commission that there were no continuing items for discussion on this preliminary plat. The developer, his engineer and Public Works have resolved their points of conflict. The Planning Staff now recommends the approval of the preliminary plat as presented, including the request that the building line waivers be modified to 15 feet for interior setbacks. After a brief discussion of this item, it was determined by the Commission that the matter be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion included approval of the setback waivers. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 7 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -5802-A NAME: Chenal Place Zoning Site Plan (C-2) LOCATION: Southwest side of Chenal Parkway adjacent to Buick/GMC dealer DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Leonard Boen by White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. Dickson Flake 401 Victory Street P. O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 374-1666 AREA: 13.1 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: None Public ZONING: C-2 Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None on site plan A. PROPOSAL: To create a C-2 Shopping Center plan with one large primary lot with a Mixed Use Commercial building and four smaller outlots for later development. Site plan review on the outlots to be done as sold. 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 well as the abutting owners. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5802-A D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. See comments on plat. 2. The only additional is a suggestion to the engineer to look at how the private street terminates in the parking lot. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main required with easements. AP&L: No response. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: water main required. Fire Department: Two hydrants OK - further comment on circulation to follow. Counter Planning: No Comment, inside city CATA: No response, nearest all day service at Wal-Mart from Bowman Road. Planning Division: No issues, conforms to plan. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape Issues: The plan submitted provides for the required street and land use buffers. Areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape Ordinance requirements with the exception of the lack of building landscaping. In this regard, a three foot wide building landscape area is called for between the proposed structure and public parking. Some flexibility with this part of the ordinance is allowed. If dumpsters are to be used their locations must be shown and they must be screened to a height of eight feet on three sides. Prior to a permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5802-A G. ANALYSIS• The revised plan conforms to the intent of the process set out in the C-2 site plan provisions of the ordinance. The four outlots will be required to return for review prior to any permit being issued. Our only remaining concern is that a close monitoring by project engineer and staff is needed to avoid cutting the 75' buffer. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the site plan subject to resolving the several issues noted in this report. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was present and offered an update on the plan/plat. The plat was modified to delete one lot and create a large lot that met the C-2 requirements. Staff of planning and Public Works indicated that the plat has address all concerns but one. The extension of a deceleration lane east bound on Chenal Parkway. The engineer for the project indicated he would work on this with Public Works. There remains only one waiver, that's on the interior setback. The item is forwarded to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Commission that there were no continuing items for discussion on this preliminary plat. The developer, his engineer and Public Works have resolved their points of conflict. The Planning Staff now recommends the approval of the preliminary plat as presented, including the request that the building line waivers be modified to 15 feet for interior setbacks. After a brief discussion of this item, it was determined by the Commission that the matter be placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion included approval of the setback waivers. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. It was determined since the setback variance was a function of the site plan review and not a subdivision ordinance design requirement, review and approval by the Board of Directors is not required. 3 December 18,'1997 ITEM NO.• D NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment Chenal Planning District LOCATION: 16,901 Cantrell Road REQUEST: To change an area from Single Family to Transition SOURCE: William J. Ormsbee 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 Transition. The site is located in an unincorporated island that is within the City's planning and zoning jurisdiction. Planning Staff reviewed the existing land use and zoning patterns in the area, as well as the Land Use Plan. The south side of Cantrell is zoned R2 with the exception of two properties just east of Katillus Road which have a POD designation. The north side of Cantrell is zoned with an OS strip along Cantrell and C2 zoning beyond the OS. At the northwest corner of Katillus and Cantrell there is a gas station with PCD zoning. The property directly west of the site currently has a non -conforming use of a veterinary clinic. The most recent land use amendment in the immediate area was in April 1997. This amendment was to change an area of (SF, O) to (PI, SO, MF) near the intersection of Chenonceau Blvd and Cantrell. The area in question is in a residential area on the south side of Cantrell. With the exception of the non -conforming use at the southeast corner of Drew and Cantrell, all the property is small lot single family homes and large lot single family homes. Staff feels that Transitional uses should not extend beyond the PK/OS area. Currently, there is property available in the existing Transition area to the east of the PK/OS that would be appropriate for the uses the applicant is asking for. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff can not recommend a land use change from Single Family to Transition. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 13, 1997) Shawn Spencer, Planner II, presented the item. Mr. Spencer stated that there have been no letters received in opposition or in agreement of the item. Three phone calls have been received concerning the item. Two of the three abutting property owners are in favor of the amendment. The third property owner is neither in favor or against the amendment, but did ask for a deferral until she can make a decision. Mr. Spencer reviewed the background of the item for the Commission. The applicant, William Ormsbee, was present. Mr. Ormsbee stated he is currently leasing the property at the southeast corner of Drew and Cantrell, which has a non -conforming status. His plans are to move his business to the property between the non -conforming use and the creek. During the last eight and a half years he has operated a veterinary clinic at this location and has just recently outgrown his building. Mr. Ormsbee went into more detail about the operations of his current business and his proposed site. Commissioner Hawn asked staff about the status of the residential area across from the large Commercial land use area. Mr. Spencer stated that the area of the amendment is currently an established residential area except for the non -conforming use that the applicant currently operates out of. Commissioner Brandon asked the applicant if any waste products from the animals would reach the creek. Mr. Ormsbee stated that contamination of the creek would not happen. Discussion then followed on the appropriateness of the requested land use in a Transition area and what is allowed in Transition. A POD would also be required in the Transition land use. Mr. Ormsbee stated that he was aware of this requirement and had no problems with filing a POD at the appropriate time. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, suggested that the item could be deferred, so Staff could re -study the land use amendment. Commissioner Hawn stated that he would be in favor of deferring the item so staff would have time to re-evaluate their recommendation and look at a larger study area. Mr. Ormsbee said he would have no problem deferring the item. Chairman Lichty reminded the applicant that after the re-evaluation that staff may not change their recommendation. Commissioner Earnest stated that the Park/open space would serve as a buffer between the Transition area and the Single Family area, but the non -conforming use weakens the argument for using KI December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont. the Park/open space as the line between Transition and Single Family. He would also be in favor of deferring the item. Commissioner Hawn made a motion to defer Item 3 until the December 18`h public hearing. Motion was seconded. Motion carried. (8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent) STAFF UPDATE: After further review of the area, staff believes the Single Family area in question has the same development patterns as the Transition area on the east side of the PK/OS. The Single Family area in question has the same lot sizes, frontages and demands as the Transition area, and should be changed to Transition. The large lot Single Family area begins just west of Drew Lane. Staff believes that Drew Lane is an appropriate edge for Transition along Highway 10. Staff believes that similar areas along Highway 10 should have the same future land use. After further review, staff believes Transition is an appropriate use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Shawn Spencer, of the Planning Staff, introduced the item. He gave a brief description of the area. He stated that two of the abutting property owners support the application and one abutting property owner had no comment. He stated that staff had not heard from any of the neighborhood associations contacted. Dr. Bill Ormsby of Town and Country Animal Hospital gave a brief description of the property and reasons for requesting a change in the land use plan. Mary Vanderford spoke in opposition to the proposed land use plan change. She stated that the proposed new animal clinic would be too close to her property. Mrs. Vanderford noted the location of her property in relation to the property in question. There was a general discussion concerning the land use plan in this general area and the proposed use of the property. The boundaries of the land use plan change were also discussed. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, gave the department's recommendation on the proposed land use plan change. There was additional discussion regarding the boundaries of this proposal. A motion was made to approve the application. The motion failed by a vote of 1 ayes, 9 nays and 1 abstention (Nunnley). f December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5-1169 NAME: Keener Valley Preliminary Plat LOCATION: SW corner of State Hwy. 10 (Cantrell Road) and Norton Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Hobby L. Jones & Carol Jones ESI by Robert D. Holloway Norton Road 200 Casey Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Maumelle, AR 72113 868-4623 851-8806 AREA: 2.88 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: FT. NEW STREET: None Residential Residential - Single Family 1. Street improvements on both Cantrell and Norton, or in the absence of a total waiver, the deferral until Lot 1 is developed. (Including sidewalk) 2. Pipe stem lot 3. Final the plat in two phases, Lots 2 and 3 first and Lot 1 at a later date when sold. A lot split proposed in July was at the point of final staff approval when it was withdrawn. The owner considered a second sale out of his lot creating three lots. This requires commission approval plus one lot required waivers for pipe stem and brought in to play conventional requirements on streets abutting the lots. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To provide for creation of two new lots out of this large rural size lot, utilizing pipe stem for Lot 2. The developer proposes to defer any public street improvements until such time as Lot 1 sells. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1169 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A large tree covered lot with a drainage course running from the southwesterly corner to Hwy. 10 on Lot 1. There is a single family dwelling on what is numbered as Lot 3. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has met with two persons who live to the south of these lots. They have expressed concern about the water problem on site. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant was granted a conditional waiver of street improvements for a lot split which is no longer valid with this subdivision. A waiver or deferral will need to be requested. 2. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from the center line of Norton Road along the entire frontage of subdivision. 3. Construct half -street improvements to Norton Road including sidewalk in conformance to the Master Street Plan. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 6. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: No comment at this writing. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: Water main extension will be required, plus execution of a pre -annexation agreement and approval by Little Rock prior to obtaining water. Fire Department: No comment at this writing. County Planning: Drainage easement locations for corners. Does the 20 foot drainage easement exist on lot of Margie Plunkett? CATA: No bus service except Hwy. 10 Express. Planning Division: No comment on plat. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1169 Landscape: No comment on plat. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The only issues here are those identified by the waivers requested. The balance of the plat is in good form. G. ANALYSIS• This plat would probably have been approved at staff level as two lots. In July staff was prepared to take the waivers to the Board and expedite the filing. At this time we feel there is little or no difference between the plats except one more lot. Two additional homes here will have no impact on the area. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat and waivers. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Mr. Jones and his engineer were present. They offered a brief overview of the proposal. The Committee had questions about the waivers. Staff reported that total waiver of street improvements is probably not going to happen but that deferral tied to Lot 1 could work. There was some discussion about drainage and easements. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of identifying the issue and presenting the staff recommendation. Wood reported that this matter was retained on the regular agenda due to the possibility of objectors being present which apparently has not developed. Wood reported Public Works has indicated that they are willing to accept the applicant's proposal to defer street improvements for a period of 5 years or until the final platting of Lot 1 is accomplished. Wood then briefly covered the other two variance issues, one of which is the pipestem lot that provides access to Lot 2 and the phasing of the final plat form will allow Lot 1 to be retained on the preliminary plat at this time. Wood reported that the staff and Subdivision Committee could not find a problem with the waivers requested and supported them. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1169 The Chairman then recognized Mr. Bob Holloway who came forward representing the application. Mr. Holloway is the engineer of record on the project. He briefly identified the ownership of the property and the proposal that is being submitted to the Commission. At the conclusion of Mr. Holloway's remarks the Chairman asked if there were others present representing or would like to speak for the application. There being none, he then asked if there were those present who opposed the application who desire to speak. There being none, the discussion was then turned to the Commission. There was no immediate response to the Chairman's request for discussion. Commissioner Putnam offered a motion that the application be approved as presented. At this point, Commissioner Adcock gained the attention of the Chairman and was recognized. The question posed by Commissioner Adcock was, "If all present had the same map." She then wanted to know how the rear most lot, Lot 2, would be serviced for access. Mr. Holloway then addressed Commissioner Adcock and identified on her graphic that the rear most lot was the lot with the pipestem. It was 30 feet in width and it was the strip of land over which access would be taken to serve the lot. Commissioner Adcock then turned her attention to the staff and posed a question concerning the history of pipestems and asked that she be refreshed with the history of the subject. Jim Lawson of the staff briefly outlined the subject stating that in some cases you have to have pipestems in order to develop the properties since there is no other way to service the land. This is why the request in this application. He stated that what staff did typically was take a look at the particular circumstance and make a judgment based on these circumstances. Lawson concluded his remarks by stating this appeared to be a good use of the land and a good application. The Chair then recognized Commissioner Nunnley. Commissioner Nunnley asked Commissioner Adcock if she had gotten the answer she desired and was that answer relative to the access issue. The question and the statements on the subject were added for the record since the discussion was carried on off the record. Commissioner Adcock replied yes to the question of Commissioner Nunnley and Mr. Holloway then returned to the lectern and stated for the record that the access for the rear lot, Lot 2, would be down this 30 foot stem. This is where the driveway will be placed to serve this lot. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam to restate his motion offered previously. A motion was offered and seconded. The vote on the motion to approve the application and variances as submitted was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (Commissioner Adcock). 4 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S -867 -EEE NAME: Chenal Valley Preliminary Plat - Lot 304 LOCATION: SE corner of Rahling Road and Wellington Village Road DEVELOPER• Deltic Timber Corporation #7 Chenal Club Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 821-5555 AREA: 13.4 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING: MF -18 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE• VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: ENGINEER• White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 1 FT. NEW STREET: None Multifamily Multifamily Platted 25 foot building lines on interior lot lines in place of ordinance standard; which is: equal to the height of the building adjacent. BACKGROUND• This parcel of land has been zoned several years and is provided for in both the Deltic overall plan and the Land Use Plan of the area. Its development has been held pending streets being extended to the site. That is now the case. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To provide a single large lot for construction of an apartment complex. Item #14 on this agenda. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Wooded site, no structures. The site is the east end of a valley that terminates at the NE corner of the site. The elevations range from 620, to 564 feet. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received. December 18,1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -867 -EEE D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Name of future arterial should be Wellington Village Road. 2. Show dedication of 90 feet of right-of-way for future arterial street from Rahling Road with additional right- of-way for right turn lanes on Rahling and future arterial. 3. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 4. Stormwater detention per ordinance applies to this property. 5. Prior to construction provide design of future arterial conforming to the Master Street Plan. 6. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, for Traffic Engineering approval. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required. Water: A water main extension will be needed to serve this property, on site fire protection will be -required. An acreage charge of $300.00 per acre applies. RPZ backflow preventer will be required on domestic service for three stories. Fire Department: No comment on plat. County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No bus service this area. Planning Division: No comment on plat. Landscape: No comment on plat. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Need certificates completed. 2. Draft of Bill of Assurance 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO • S -867 -EEE G. ANALYSIS• This is a simple one lot plat to carry out the plat needs of the Carrington Park site plan for apartments. The plat is in good order. There are no issues of consequence. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to staff comments and Public Works Department. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The engineer for Deltic was present. There was no comment on the plat except to change name of the west boundary street. Most of the conversation dealt with the site plan on this site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that there are no continuing issues on this plat. Staff and Public Works approved the design as submitted. Public Works also requested that the condition items numbered 1-8 and their comments be attached to the motion. The motion to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval was made including the conditions requested by Public Works. The Consent Approval agenda was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. q December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-867-FFF NAME: Chenal Valley - Bayonne Preliminary Plat (PH. 14-D) LOCATION: A large tract of land lying south of Chenenceau Blvd. and east of Chenal Parkway. DEVELOPER• Deltic Timber Corporation #7 Chenal Valley Circle Little Rock, AR 72211 821-5555 ENGINEER• White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 AREA: 99.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 150 FT. NEW STREET: 9,260 ZONING: R-2 ALLOWED USES: Single Family PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Pipe stem lots (33, 34 and 35) 2. Sidewalks as an interpretation of how the ordinance should apply. BACKGROUND• This large tract is a continuing development of the north slope, Deltic Development. The area was reflected on the Deltic Plan and City Land Use Plan as single family. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop 150 lots in a conventional subdivision format, public streets and utilities. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is a heavily wooded area on rolling terrain much like land developed to the east along Hinson Road and north to Hwy. 10. Then are no physical improvements at this time. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-FFF C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. However all the abutting lands are Deltic. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, Traffic Engineering approval. 5. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. 6. All new street names approved. 7. All streets shall conform to centerline radii, tangent distances, and street grades per MSP and be shown on the plat. 8. Bayonne Drive, Bayonne Court, and Nemours Drive need to be designed to standard residential street standards their entire length and not be reduced to minor residential street standards in any portion of the street. Therefore sidewalks apply. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: An additional 5 foot easement beyond the street right-of-way along all front lot line. Water: water main extension, required. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No bus service this area. Planning Division: No comment on plat. Landscape: No comment on plat. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-FFF F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. 30 feet minimum on pipe stems on lots 2. Vicinity map needs work. 3. Show building line on Lots 48-50, Block 25 4. Show narrow dimension on Tract E, where do Tracts E and F separate. 5. Show contours on Lots 31, 32, 33, Block 25. 6. Show sidewalks on balance of Bayonne Dr. (at cul-de- sac) also on Nemours Dr. and Bayonne Court. 7. Show city limits. 8. Discuss commitment to widen Chenal relative to abutting property development. G. ANALYSIS• This is a well -thought through plat and appears to work at every design level. The several items in issues above are typical kinds of plat issues and staff feels comfortable that they can be resolved. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to resolving the points in Public Works, Engineering write-up as well as planning comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was represented by the engineer for the plat. Numerous questions were posed abut street design, width of pipestems. Mr. White, the engineer, was asked to discuss the commitment on Deltics part to build the remaining lanes on Chenal Parkway. Mr. White stated that he believed that 600 lots along the corridor was the key but that he would check. Sidewalk waivers were discussed with staff and commission requesting a basis for the deletion at the cul-de-sac ends. Mr. White said that he thought policy permitted reduction to minor street standards in these designs where the street narrows to serve a few lots. The Committee wanted more on this. It will require full discussion at the public hearing. A question arose about what was the future use of the large green space along Chenal Parkway. The answer was permanent open space due to severe grades and very steep slopes along Chenal Parkway. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-867-FFF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Staff reported to the Commission this applicant has requested that this plat be deferred to the regular public hearing on February 5, 1998. It was reported there are apparently some concerns from property owners in the Johnson Ranch area as well as property owners immediately to the north along Bayonne Drive and other adjacent streets. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that this item should be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to allow sufficient time for the applicant to meet with the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the application to February 5, 1998. A vote on the motion produced 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 4 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S -1100-A NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Along both sides of Cooper Orbit Road north of Spring Valley Manor DEVELOPER• John L. Burnett, TR. 1501 N. University Ave. Suite 800 Little Rock, AR 72207 ENGINEER• William L. Dean Civil Design, Inc. 15104 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72212 AREA: 190.6 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 270 FT. NEW STREET: 24,290 ZONING: R-2 & MF ALLOWED USES: Single Family & Multifamily PROPOSED USE: Single Family & Multifamily with Open Space VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. Request for waiver on maximum allowable grade for a segment of the standard collector is to be addressed at the time of final design. 2. Cul-de-sac length waiver is requested for the Bangor cul-de- sac street, the length is only approximately 35 feet longer than specified by the Ordinance. 3. Allow Baton Rouge Dr. to be a cul-de-sac with sidewalk and 26 foot pavement. 4. variance is requested to allow "pipestem" lots for Lots 88, 111, 97. BACKGROUND• This plat represents a new approach to the preliminary plat after being denied earlier in conjunction with the rezoning. At this time it appears the design items of neighborhood, Master Street Plan and easement issues have been resolved or nearly so. The MF zoning remains in place after having been successful the second time the request was reviewed by the Board of Directors. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1100-A A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop this 190± acres of difficult terrain with single family and apartments in a design that will blend with the area as close as possible; to provide extension of both collector and arterial streets through the parcel; to provide needed access to several abutting owners. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Except for the roadway of Cooper Orbit Road and some easements, the site is undisturbed and heavily wooded. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The neighborhood of Spring Valley Manor has a representative that visited the office and viewed the plat. The only comment that may cause discussion is the proposed intersection of the new Cooper Orbit Road and Baton Rouge Drive. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 2. The preliminary plat shows proposed minimum ROW widths, variations from minimum widths shall be determined by the street and drainage construction plans for each development phase and incorporated on the final plats. Residential and minor residential street grades will not exceed 17% and 18%, respectively. 3. Minor arterial minimum ROW width is 100, with variations up to 120' in certain locations to accommodate cuts or fills and an extra left turn off of the minor arterial to southbound Rushmore Drive. Street width is planned as 59, back-to-back of curb except for the section at Rushmore Drive intersection which will be 71, back-to- back of curb to provide for the two left turn lanes onto the collector street. 4. Collector minimum ROW width is 90, through Phase 1 and 100' minimum through Phase 3. Greater ROW width in some locations is anticipated due to cut and fill requirements. Normal street width is 36, back-to-back of curb except at the minor arterial intersection where provisions will be made for left turn movements and right turn merge lane for eastbound traffic. 5. Stormwater detention requirements will be met through construction of series ponds located in the areas 0a December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1100-A indicated on the preliminary plat. It is anticipated that all differential runoff strong volumes required for the overall project can be achieved with a pond system involving from four to six ponds in series. Pond system design will involve permanent pool depths and water supply from shallow groundwater for water level maintenance. Runoff hydrographs, stage -storage relationships, and pond routings for peak discharge limits will be submitted along with street and drainage plans for Phase 1 construction. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. All street names will need suffix's added. All cul-de- sacs off of Baton Rouge and Rose Garden will need to be named and approved by this office. Show all sidewalks on Preliminary Plat. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension to serve property with easements. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Various easements. Water: 12" main in Cooper Orbit Road to be relocated at developers expense. An acreage charge of $300.00 and $15.00 per front foot on Cooper Orbit applies in additional to normal charges. Water and main extension required. Needs of adjacent owner to be considered. Fire Department: County Planning: No Comment. CATA: No service in this area. Planning Division: Capitol Lakes Collector issue: As a result of agreements made between the Capitol Lakes owner and Spring valley Manor Association related to the annexation of Capitol Lakes, Staff held several meetings on relocation of Cooper Orbit and the collector pattern. There was agreement between the Capitol Lakes owner and owner to the West (Stephens) to realign to collector. The Collector would turn west before getting to Spring Valley Manor. Staff indicated support of this change as long as an alternate alignment could also be agreed to south of Spring Valley Manor. Discussion with property owners started in order to find a path for this realignment. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1100-A The developers of Brodie Creek approach the City about a review of the entire street system between Bowman the west Loop, south of Kanis to Colonel Glenn. After several months an agreement was reached to hire a consultant. As a result of this consultant contract, Staff stopped work attempting to find a relocation corridor south of Spring Valley Manor. In the Fall of 1997, a contract was signed with Peters & Associates to review the Master Street Plan alignments in the area between Kanis and Colonel Glenn, west of Bowman to the west Loop. Staff has informed the consultants of the agreements related to the realignment of Cooper Orbit north of Spring Valley Manor. Staff expects the consultant will not change the agreed to realignment, but will include it as part of their report. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. 30 feet minimum on pipestems 2. Owner certificate per ordinance 3. Discuss access to owner east of Tract "D", easement, how wide. 4. Show city limits. 5. Show phasing plan. G. ANALYSIS: This plat appears to have adequately addressed all the questions developed the last time. On June 20, 1996 the Commission by vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstained approved the plat with conditions. The plat failed at the Board of Directors level only because the zoning and various waivers failed. At this time staff feels that the plat can be approved as filed if the various Public Works and Planning Staff comments are addressed. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat at this meeting if the owner engineer can address concerns in writing and submit in time to forward to Planning Commission with agenda. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) In as much as there was no one present on this item, the Committee agreed with staff that the item should be deferred until February meeting. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 _(Cont.) FILE NO S 1100 A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of presenting this item and the staff recommendation. Wood stated that first this item was held on the regular agenda due to the potential for neighborhood objection and for discussion of the several variances that have been requested. Wood pointed out that the item was retained on the regular agenda because the application was not represented at the Subdivision Committee which is the point at which the design issues are discussed and many times resolved. Wood then proceeded to outline the several variances or waivers that are requested on this application offering that Public Works may want to address the issue of access for several of these lots. Immediately following Wood's comments, the Chairman stated he had one card on this application from someone wishing to speak on the matter. The card was from Terry Easton, a resident of the area immediately to the south. The Chairman asked Ms. Easton if she desired to address the issue at this time. Her response was that she wanted to speak largely in favor of the application but not at this point in the hearing. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was present and wished to address the Commission. He recognized Mr. Jim Hathaway who came forward speaking for the request. Mr. Hathaway pointed out that Mr. Dean, the engineer for the project, was present and would have discussion on the technical design details if there were questions specifically on the waiver requests. Mr. Hathaway identified one issue that he would like to address. An issue he wanted to address was one Ms. Easton would be discussing, the termination of a street. He briefly directed the Commission's attention to a certain page of a graphic in the agenda. It was identifying a specific street by the name of Baton Rouge. He pointed out that Ms. Easton represents a subdivision lying to the south and east of his project and their concern is the intersection of Baton Rouge at Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. Hathaway stated their concern is that the intersection is on a curve fairly close to the entrance of their subdivision. They have some concerns about this intersection. He stated that this developer has been requested by this neighborhood to consider placing a cul-de-sac at the east end of Baton Rouge so as to prohibit that thru street and thereby eliminating the intersection. This would be in the area of Lots 45 and 85. Mr. Hathaway stated that the developer has agreed to do this if it is all right with Public Works. He then moved his remarks to the upper most portion of the plat and proceeded to discuss 5 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1100-A waivers in this area. He identified these two streets as Frankfort and Bangor. He stated that in discussions with Public Works it was okay on the Bangor and Frankfort Streets' design length issue and his developer is willing to build the cul-de-sac to terminate Baton Rouge. The closure of Baton Rouge as a cul- de-sac would cause the developer to build a sidewalk along this street and build pavement to a 26 foot width. Mr. Hathaway stated that the developer agreed to do that. This would probably resolve the issue which is the concern of the Spring Valley Manor property owners. Mr. Hathaway stated: "In concurrence with the Planning Commission granting the waiver and with the developer's agreement to build the cul-de-sac, sidewalk and the street to the 26 foot standard. This is the developer's position and summary." The Chair recognized Commissioner Putnam. Commissioner Putnam posed a question as to what happened to Bangor. This issue seemed to have dropped in the discussion offered by Mr. Hathaway and most of his comments dealt with Baton Rouge. He wanted to know what was the resolution on Bangor. Mr. Hathaway stated that two of the waivers being requested involve Frankfort and Bangor Streets. Both of these streets exceed the allowable street length for a cul-de-sac. If the Commission would allow them to do the same thing on Baton Rouge that is being done on Frankfort and Bangor, then the developer can eliminate the concerns of the Spring Valley property owners. At this point, the Chairman then recognized Commissioner Faust. The question she posed was is the length of the street just for Frankfort and not for Bangor? A general discussion then followed involving Commissioner Faust, the Chairman and Mr. Hathaway as to what was in the agenda, what was the actual request and which street if not both was longer than the permitted length. It was determined that both of these streets exceed the cul-de-sac length, but the agreement with Public Works was they be recognized as minor streets without sidewalk even though they are somewhat longer than the permitted length. The Chairman then put the hearing back on the normal protocol. He asked for the neighborhood representative to come forward and speak to issues that she may be concerned about. She offered concerns that had previously been offered by the neighborhood. She stated that if they could at all possible divert traffic flows upward or to the north and east to Kanis Road, then it would benefit her neighborhood. She said if the cul-de-sac is accomplished on Baton Rouge thereby terminating the access, then the neighborhood has no problem with the Capitol Lakes project. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Bill Dean, the engineer for the project, and asked him if he had any comments. Mr. Dean stated that he had none except to restate the request and ask for 6 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1100-A approval. The Chairman then asked if there were those present to speak for or against the issue. He stated that he had no cards of others wishing to participate. By receiving no response, the Chairman then moved the discussion to the Commission and asked if they had comments. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Hawn who offered a motion. His motion was that the Commission approve the preliminary plat with accepting the variances on Bangor, Frankfort and Baton Rouge as to cul-de-sac length. He motioned also to include the staff and Public Works' recommendations on the other several variances. At this point David Scherer of Public Works asked the Chairman for permission to address the Commission. Mr. Scherer's comments were that he needed to make clarification on Baton Rouge. "The length of this street dictated that it be a 26 foot pavement which is a standard residential as opposed to 24 feet which is a minor." The residential street would allow up to 1,300 feet. Mr. Scherer pointed out that although there is no waiver required, the developer had agreed to build Rose Garden and Dover Street when constructed as standard streets as opposed to minor streets. This is what they had originally been shown on the plat. The plat would be amended to reflect that. The Chairman then redirected the Commission back to the issue which was the motion on the floor. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Faust at this point. She stated that she simply wanted clarification as to whether or not the other several waivers there indicated on the staff write-up still apply. The response was yes. She closed her comment by asking someone to clarify the circumstance of Lot 88. She stated that she could not understand where that lot would take street access. Staff responded by saying: "The lot is accessed on a pipestem over Lot 89 in front of it." The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Earnest who posed a question about the multifamily. The question posed by Commissioner Earnest was clarification of the zoning issue relative to a statement made in the background write-up by staff. Then indicating there was some confusion in the way it was written. Jim Lawson of the staff indicated that it was poorly written and there was no issues relative to zoning or land use. The Chairman then moved the issue to Commissioner Hawn's motion which was to approve the preliminary plat with the several variances which had been explained in this public hearing. Prior to a vote on the motion, the Chairman received interruption from the representative of Spring Valley Manor. She approached the lectern asking a question as to whether or not the zoning was still the same as previously, MF -12 and not MF -18. Staff responded by saying the zoning was not part of this application 7 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1100-A and has not been changed since the ordinance was originally adopted for MF -12. At this point, Commissioner Adcock inserted a comment that on the vote she wanted it recorded that she was supporting the plat and the several waivers, except for the pipestem lot issue. She offered for the record that she would be voting for all other aspects of the application but she wanted to be on the record as opposing the pipestem lot and abstaining from voting on this issue. There was a second on the motion. A vote count produced a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent on all aspects except Commissioner Adcock's abstaining vote on the pipestem lot request. 8 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S -1162-A NAME: Baptist Health - Kanis South Preliminary Plat LOCATION: 10200 Block of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Baptist Health The Mehlburger Firm C/o Earl Paul by Greg Sullivan 9601 I-630, Exit 7 201 Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 202-2000 375-5331 AREA: 31.54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 13 FT. NEW STREET: 400± ft. ZONING: 0-3 ALLOWED USES: Office PROPOSED USE• Office VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Owner wants to discuss appropriateness of sidewalk requirement along Jr. Deputy Road. 1. Length of cul-de-sac 2. Minimum radius on street BACKGROUND• At the October 30 meeting, this owner filed a 4 lot plat on this site. As the result of questions by staff, the plat has been refiled with lots over the south area of the parcel. It was suggested at the meeting that Wilson Road and West 16th Street be abandoned as not necessary to serve an office plat. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To expand the 4 lot plat by adding two culs-de-sac to terminate Wilson Road, no access to Jr. Deputy Road and use Aldersgate to serve lots. Office uses are proposed throughout. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This 31± acres is covered with second or third growth trees but is dense. The existing roads abutting are substandard except for Jr. Deputy Road which was recently improved by December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1162-A the City. The terrain is gently falling from northeast corner to southwest corner. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Two calls at this writing from Twin Lakes owners but no objection expressed. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedication of right-of-way of 60 feet wide for Wilson Road. 2. Dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of 16th Street if closure is not approved. 3. The proposed commercial cul-de-sac length exceeds the maximum 300 feet. 4. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). 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 per ordinance applies to this property. 7. Provide three copies of site grading and drainage plans and detention calculations for each development. 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. 12. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. 13. Submit new names for Wilson Road and small cul-de-sac since it is separated from Wilson Road. Call David Hathcock at 371-4808 for approval over the phone. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1162-A Water: No objection. Easement requirement in portion of Wilson Road to be abandoned to accommodate an existing main. Fire Department: No comment received. County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: Route 3, HMC serves the immediate area, one block east. Planning Division: No comment on plats. Landscape: No comment on plat. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Show sidewalk all streets. 2. Note no access to Jr. Deputy Road. Vehicle access easement required. 3. How will remaining lots after 1; 2 and 13 be platted, show phasing. G. ANALYSIS• This plat much like the 4 lot plat last mouth, has design elements that will require street right-of-way closure, and renaming of Wilson Street. The proposal at this time is one lot sales as market demands and that is the typical approach. Staff has no problem with that phasing so long as the street is constructed to serve the lots. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as filed subject to resolving the several minor issues raised by staff. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was present. He presented the plat and explained the change from October 30 agenda. He was questioned by staff and Committee as to design of the street curve and sidewalks along Jr. Deputy Road. No resolution of these issues was gained. The Committee forwards this item for full Commission hearing. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1162-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Planning Staff reported to the Commission that the applicant in this instance has removed the variance request that dealt with sidewalks and will now construct those as required by ordinance. Staff also reported that the waiver for minimum horizontal street radius has been changed in its design to a minor commercial street standard. This is now acceptable to the Public Works Department. In closing staff reported that in the future abandonment of the West 16th Street right-of-way along the south perimeter of this plat, provision will be required for the termination of Perry, Wilson and Nichols Street as they approach from the south. These three intersections will be dealt with at the occasion of the filing of the petition or abandonment. The only remaining item which will require approval by the City Board of Directors will be a waiver of the cul-de-sac length on Wilson Street with the two new cul-de-sacs. The staff and Public Works recommend approval of this waiver. A brief discussion by the Commission determined to place this item on the Consent Agenda subject to the material included in the staff report above. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 4 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: S-1168 NAME: Boulevard Terrace Addition Replat LOCATION: On the south side of West 28th Street between South Jackson and Boulevard Streets DEVELOPER• City of Little Rock AREA: .82 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 ZONING: R-3 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE• VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: ENGINEER• Donald Brooks 1611 Main Street No. Little Rock, AR 72114 FT. NEW STREET: None Single Family Single Family 1. A 20 foot building line along West 28th Street. BACKGROUND• The subject property has been vacant for a number of years except for Lot 1-R on the replat. A residence exists on this lot. There are a few mature trees and a lot of undergrowth. The City acquired the lots as originally platted at 50 feet wide and working with CDBG and Housing Programs office devised this replat. This area is part of the Oak Forest initiative. UALR and the City have targeted this area to work toward halting the deterioration. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To reduce 6 lots as now platted to 5. There will be 4 new houses constructed and the existing house will be rehabilitated. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The lots are overgrown with a few large trees. The 28th Street frontage is in good shape with curb and gutter. Jackson Street is substandard and needs upgrading. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1168 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline of Jackson Street and West 28th Street including a 20 foot radial dedication at intersections. 2. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer available - not adversely affected. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: No Comment. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: Route 16 runs West 29th Street, one block south, all day service. Planning Division: No comment on plats. Landscape: No comment on plat. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Adjust building line on Lot 1-R to go around porch. 2. Provide corner radius of 25 feet (dedicate right-of- way). G. ANALYSIS: This is a very simple lot recombination. The plat would normally be a staff matter except that here street right-of- way is required and staff cannot accept dedication. There are no design issues and if the City Staff can work out street improvement issues it may not require City Board of Directors, involvement. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1168 H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval subject to resolving Public Works issue/requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) There was no one present to discuss the Public Works requirements. However, Anne Guthrie of the Housing Department attempted to fill that roll. There was very little discussion and after Bruce Kemmet of Public Works explained his comments the item was forwarded to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported that there are no continuing issues on this plat. There are no improvements required on abutting streets because no new lots are being created. The only remaining issue to be dealt with as a waiver request by the Board of Directors is the building line along West 28th Street. The applicant requests that be 20 feet as opposed to 25 feet required by the Ordinance. Public Works and staff recommend approval of this plat and the attending variance request. A motion was made to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. That motion was seconded. The Consent Approval agenda was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. 3 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -6386-A NAME• Biggs PD -C LOCATION: On the east side of Fourche Dam Pike just north of Roosevelt Road intersection. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: C. Arthur and Caroline Biggs None AREA: 1.16 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 to be PD -C ALLOWED USES: Residential Currently - PD -C would permit grocery and restaurant BACKGROUND• This is a vacant lot rearing on Fourche Creek in the area of the March 1997 tornado. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: To build a new building for a restaurant and grocery sales. The hours of operation would be 10:00 A.M. till 7:30 P.M. on Monday through Friday, and 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Saturday. The business would be closed on Sunday. The applicant states that they have served this area for eleven years and would like to continue. Some landscaping and a low key monument sign are proposed. There is a request for less than ordinance standard for fencing, paving of parking and street improvement. A 5 year deferral on improvements. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is basically a weed lot after the tornado. The remaining trees are damaged as are a number of houses adjacent, some of which look abandoned. Fourche Dam Pike is a County Road two lane pavement without curb, gutter or sidewalk. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. However, we understand the residents of this area want the business to stay in the area. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Fourche Dam Pike is listed on the MSP as a collector, dedication of right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline of street is required. 2. With development construct half street improvements, including sidewalks, to Fourche Dam Pike. Provide streets plans per MSP and site grading and drainage plans to Bruce Kemmet, 701 West Markham, prior to construction. 3. A grading and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Contact Steve Loop or Melvin Hall at 371-4811 for assistance. 4. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. 5. Fourche Dam Pike Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 2,500. E. UTILITIES• wastewater: No sewer available at this time. Sewer main extension required with easements. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Hell: OK as submitted. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment, inside city. LATA: Route 20, College Station runs rush hour only. Planning Division: The site is in the Port District. The Plan recommends Single Family Residential use. The request is for Commercial. There have been no land use changes in this area within the last five years. On October 2, the Planning Commission denied a request to change the Plan from Single Family to Commercial. At that time Staff maintained that the area was residential in nature. Due to the circulation pattern in the short and mid-term the area is not likely to change. The applicant provided information on the need for: a restaurant and small grocery, service to the area, etc. Based on the Commissions previous action any PCD which looks and acts as a commercial development cannot be supported. The request is in conflict with the Plan and the application makes no attempt to meet the spirit of the Plan. PA December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6386-A F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Note dumpsters with screening. 2. Provide specifics on alternate parking surface material. 3. Show parking lot lighting, type and height. 4. Provide more detail on building signage. Landscape• - The site plan submitted does not provide for a six foot wide land buffer north of the proposed vehicular use area. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum width of four feet. The plan submitted allows for a width of two feet. A total of six percent of the vehicular use area must be landscaped with interior islands. The plan submitted is 426 square feet short of this Landscape Ordinance requirement. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A six foot high opaque screen is required to help screen this site from residential properties to the north and south. This screen may be a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. The levee should provide adequate screening to the east. Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• The development of this tract for commercial has been under review for several months. First as a plan amendment since the current plan shown residential. Amending the plan failed but there was a suggestion that a PD -C might be well received and not looked upon as a commercial change in the plan. Thus the application before the Commission at this time. Planning Staff still has a lot of problems with inserting this one lot commercial at this point. We feel it could be a deterrent to other owners to fix their storm damaged homes. This especially in light of this application wanting grass parking lot and less than standard on other features. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the application as being incompatible with the neighborhood and the adopted Land Use Plan. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was present. There was considerable discussion by Committee and staff about various exceptions from ordinance standards. The street improvement deferral for 5 years is not particularly difficult to accept. However, Public Works, Planning and Committee had a problem with a grass parking lot, especially this large. The chainlink in place of board fence atop the levee is acceptable but specifics need to be submitted on signage, parking lot, lighting, dumpster and building finish or elevation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of introducing this item and offering staff recommendation. Wood briefly ran through the proposal that was originally filed. He identified the location of the property and its history relative to the land use plan amendment which had failed previously. Wood concluded his remarks by stating that staff has a revised cover letter which has been delivered to staff immediately prior to the public hearing. It significantly amends the application. The amendments are to remove all of the waivers that were previously requested with the exception of deferral of the street improvements as agreed upon with Public Works and the erection of chainlink fencing as opposed to opaque fencing on the perimeter. The Chairman recognized at this point Commissioner Nunnley for a comment. Commissioner Nunnley asked Wood of the staff to restate his previous comment. Wood went on to describe what was submitted by the applicant, that being a very sketchy drawing with a very limited amount of information indicating no on-site improvements except the building. Wood expanded on his comment by including some commentary on the proposed parking and landscaping and the deficiencies that would have been attached to such a development proposal. At the conclusion of Wood's response, the Chairman directed the hearing to the applicant. Again Commissioner Nunnley asked before we began this part of the conversation for some history on the road and the deferral of those improvements. Wood offered a brief commentary of the history of the roadway relative to annexation and it being an old county road with less than standard improvements. He stated this owner proposed to continue that status for a period of several years to allow him to financially accommodate it and would within a specific time period build the improvements. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Berry for a comment. Commissioner Berry asked what the requirement for parking spaces 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A were for this type of use. Staff responded by saying, "For this type of restaurant or food service use the ordinance typically requires one space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. But in this instance, it is a planned development and the ordinance only acts as a guide and not a fixed number. - The Chairman then attempted to regain control over the meeting and move the meeting back to the required protocol. He recognized Mr. Biggs to speak for his application. Mr. Biggs began his commentary by stating that he was trying to do something good for the neighborhood and he and his wife had worked long and hard to do so. He then moved into a history of the issue relative to the last several months and the assistance that had been rendered by various public officials. He continued by offering some history and discussion with Mr. Lawson and others relative to whether or not this area was within the airport expansion area. Apparently, some discussions were held that confirmed their suspicion. The airport had no immediate plans to move into this area and did not know if they would ever have any involvement in this area. Mr. Biggs then presented to the Commission a rendering of his proposal illustrating the buildings and landscaping and an improved parking area. This was passed about to the several commissioners. Mr. Biggs offered comments on the existing land use in the immediate area identifying other businesses nearby. Mr. Biggs also commented on how this residential area had been impacted by recent developments and activities both by the airport commission expansion and two new large businesses nearby as well as the March tornado which rendered significant damage to the area. Mr. Biggs then directed the Commission to that part of his application wherein there is commentary by the Planning division of the Planning Department relative to the adopted land use plan for the area and the effect this might have on the area. He offered extensive commentary on neighborhood support for his proposal as well as the status of the number of homes that are continued in the damaged condition from the March tornado. Mr. Biggs responded to comments he had heard earlier about the late submittal of his cover letter. He stated that was simply because so many things have changed in this application since he originally filed it. Mr. Biggs produced at this point several surveys that he had accomplished in this area with the assistance of his wife relative to land use and occupancy and various other things. One of these studies being related to land use development. He pointed specifically to the United Parcel Services and the large parcel of I-1 zoning immediately across the street from his project. He pointed out that his review of the record on that industrial zoning was that staff supported this action. Mr. Biggs concluded his remarks at this point. 5 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present that wished to speak for or against this issue. There being none, the Chairman turned the issue to the Commission for a discussion. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Nunnley. Commissioner Nunnley offered a question to Mr. Biggs as to what portion of his proposed building would be devoted to grocery sales. Mr. Biggs stated that it would not be a significant portion. The numbers that he offered would be an area within the building about 30 feet by 40 feet. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Hawn for comment. He stated that Mr. Biggs was doing exactly what the Commission had asked that he do at the last public hearing which was to come back to the Commission with a planned development. The revised letter in which the Commission is now in receipt indicates that Mr. Biggs is willing to comply with all of the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Hawn continued his remarks by saying Mr. Biggs is apparently the only person that is stepping up and trying to do something with his property and make it profitable. The Commission should make every effort to make it convenient and profitable. He further stated that he would be supportive of deferring the boundary street improvements as requested until such time as the rest of the street is improved. He said that he would be willing to approve this PCD. The Chairman then recognized Jim Lawson of the staff. Lawson reminded the Commission that the staff was opposed to the land use change when it was submitted and it was turned down. He stated that this is a residential area and that we recognize some of the structures in the area were damaged by the tornado, some were rebuilt and some were not. He indicated that it is still a residential pocket and the plan still shows it as residential. But to go in and zone it for a restaurant, grocery store or commercial was the same thing to him as just zoning it C-3. If the plan shows it residential and the Commission goes in and zones it to PCD, then it is still just commercial. The next time we go to court there may be some problems associated with defending that position. The Commission and the city may be held arbitrary and capricious by our actions. He stated that it was improper to make the argument that it would be okay in these kind of circumstances because it is a PCD and that it is no different than were it zoned C-3. If you drive down this street, you will see a commercial use. Lawson stated that the question is from a staff view, "Do we want it to be a residential pocket? If we decide that we don't want it to be residential, then we need to change the plan and not just this one tract." Lawson stated that he felt this was a very important case. This is why staff brought the land use plan to the Commission first because it was a very serious issue. r December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A Chairman Lichty responded at the end of Lawson's comments. He said there has never been a situations where this Commission has not had exceptions to the land use plan but never in a situation where we had denied previously a change in the land use plan. He asked Lawson if that was staff's point. Lawson responded to the Chairman by saying, "The staff read the previous action of the Commission to say this is a residential pocket and it should remain." After several brief comments between Lawson and Lichty, the Chairman then recognized Commissioner Berry for a comment. Commissioner Berry asked Lawson, "If the land use plan had been amended and this would be a neighborhood commercial use on a scale which he felt this application really was. He felt like this would be what would be called third place, meaning places in a neighborhood to go and gather. This type of use represents this. He asked if it was conceivable that this is proper with the land use of neighborhood and commercial." Lawson responded by saying, "This is something that staff will just have to look at. This is not a corner property but it is in midblock. If your typical neighborhood commercial is located on a corner and if the Commission has decided this was neighborhood commercial, then the Planning staff would not be recommending against it. With this being shown single family and dropped in, staff has no other choice." The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam pointed out to the rest of the Commission several features of the drawing that was in the agenda packet identifying specifically what is currently zoned industrial, the United Parcel site. He pointed out that most of the old family, good residential that is in this residential pocket is on the upper end of the area and not down in the storm damaged portion. He stated that he felt like there were little stores of this nature all over this eastern part of Little Rock. Chairman Lichty then offered a comment that he personally had a problem with this application being in the middle of a block. It would be more palatable to him if it were on the corner. He then recognized Commissioner Hawn for a comment. Commissioner Hawn offered a question as to whether or not this restaurant is replacing one that was either storm damaged or previously in the area. Mr. Biggs responded by saying it was not specifically replacing one, but there was one in the area several blocks to the west -south of the property. Mr. Biggs pointed out that the storm did not destroy that store and they had the building leased. The property owner assumed control of the property for his uses. He stated that the man who owned the buildings in this immediate commercial complex lost his buildings and assumed this structure for his business activity. 7 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Nunnley for a comment. Commissioner Nunnley pointed out that he had some concerns about the amount of traffic that would be generated by this development's delivery services. He said he wanted to know what would be the effect if the road repairs or improvement were deferred. If truck traffic would occur, what vehicles would trigger those repairs being accomplished? Lawson's response was "the only way this would occur for improvements beyond this actual development site would be if other developments were to occur. Those kinds of redevelopment issues for commercial uses would trigger road improvements." David Scherer of Public Works gained the attention of the Chairman. He requested permission to address a point. Mr. Scherer pointed out that the city currently has a public project. This project is to improve Fourche Dam Pike which is a collector on the Master Street Plan. He directed the Commission to a sketch in their agenda packet and identified for them the location of the improvement which is basically to the south and east of the subject property. Mr. Scherer stated what Public Works has asked this applicant to do in lieu because they have a narrow frontage on Fourche Dam Pike and doing a small frontage does not provide a benefit. That in lieu to be contributed by the developer for this frontage and the in lieu funds be contributed to the road improvement project. Mr. Scherer stated that the owner had agreed to contribute to the in -lieu on a one year basis then provide for the payment over a three year period. He stated that the payments would be provided at the end of each of the three years beginning at the end of the first year. The City would use the bid price for the public project as the basis for making the financial determination. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Downing for comments. Commissioner Downing posed a question to Jim Lawson of staff. The question being as to whether or not Commissioner Berry's comments earlier had been discussed with the applicant. Jim Lawson's response to that was the plan amendment submitted earlier and submitted to the Commission for its review was a straight commercial and did not deal with the subject that Commissioner Berry raised. He stated that he did not believe that this subject had been discussed with the applicant. Lawson expanded on that comment by saying if the Commission determined that it would approve this action today, then he was going to ask the Commission to act on a plan amendment. This would be a rezoning guiding the land use plan but it probably would be a better position for the court. Commissioner Downing followed up his first question with another one. He stated that if Commissioner Berry's concept was to 8 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6386-A occur, would the staff position relative to this application be different? Lawson responded by saying it could be different. Lawson continued his remarks by saying that if the Commission decided to insert this neighborhood commercial that the staff would figure out how to make it fit. The Commission would ask the staff to look at the whole area and point out where neighborhood commercial should be. Commissioner Downing then posed a question, "Because of the damages and the boarded up houses in the area, has the staff perhaps considered a review of the plan and perhaps changed the use because of what has occurred in the area? Lawson responded by saying no, that staff is going in the opposite direction. He stated that staff sees this as a marginal area but it is still a residential area. Staff does not want to eliminate this residential area. He stated action such as the one proposed would wipe the area out. He said the area is trying to come back and if it is, then you don't want to drop a use such as this into this location. He concluded his remark by saying a decision needs to be made if this is going to be a residential area or not. Chairman Lichty inserted a comment at this point that he could not recall the Commission having asked the staff to re-examine the area in a comprehensive way when this first came before the Commission. Chairman Lichty then stated he would receive a motion on the issue. Commissioner Hawn gained the floor for a motion. His motion was that the application be approved as filed with the deferral agreement on the boundary street improvements which would include the fence request for chainlink as oppose to opaque fencing. The motion was seconded. A vote on the motion produced 3 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Rohn Muse). The Chairman declared the application to have been denied for failure to receive sufficient votes. At the conclusion of the vote on this item, Commissioner Adcock asked the Chairman if there was not some way the staff could look at the area? The Chairman responded by saying the appropriate time to have done that was back when the original application for the plan review was submitted. He stated at that time there was no compelling reason to do so. He said he understood there was apparently no change. A brief discussion then followed involving the Commission and the applicant. When there was a discussion of circumstances of the area, Commissioner Adcock asked if there was not the possibility of appealing their denial to the Board of Directors. Chairman Lichty gained attention of the applicants before they left the room and instructed them there was the right of appeal to the Board of Directors. V] December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -6179-A NAME: Davis Petroleum PD -C LOCATION: 14103 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER• Davis Petroleum Services 3520 West 69th Street Suite 203 Little Rock, AR 72209 565-0035 ENGINEER• DCI by Robert Brown 2200 N. Rodney Parham Rd. Suite 220 Little Rock, AR 72212 221-7880 AREA: 0.77 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: PD -C ALLOWED USES: Proposed to be an auto lube/oil change plus one bay car wash in later phase. No other uses requested at this time. BACKGROUND• This site was previously approved for a car wash only on November 7, 1996. That plan was very little different from this plan. One primary change is the large ditch will remain open. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To construct a three bay express lube, an oil facility plus a small office, and storage area. The site plan is laid out in a fashion to keep a minimum 48.67 foot setback off Cantrell Road. This lot is within the Hwy. 10 Overlay. However, a pre-existing size permits a PD -C to build closer and provide less than the overlay standard. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is a weed lot with a drainage ditch running north and south. The adjacent lot to the west is a mini -warehouse complex. Kroger is across Cantrell and a mix of commercial and residential lies to the east. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. The Pankey and Secluded Hills Neighborhood Associations were notified. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -6179-A D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. Submit grading and drainage plan for approval prior to construction. 2. Cantrell Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a principal arterial, dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline will be required. 3. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage along east property line. 4. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start work. 5. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-of-way. 6. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: No comment at this writing. County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No regular bus service, Hwy. 10 Express only. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Detail on retaining wall, type, height and whether a fence on top be required. 2. Need lighting scheme. 3. Detail on building signage. 4. Hours of operation. 5. Type of construction, brick, metal, etc. Planning• The site is in the River Mountain District. The Plan recommends Commercial use. The request is for Commercial use. In the last five years there have been two changes in the area. One shifted the location of a 'Low Density �A December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6179-A Residential' area north of Cantrell Road. This area is currently under review. The Neighborhood Committee is not expected to recommend any land use changes in this area. The other changed a 'Park/Open Space' area to 'Single Family' east of Pankey. The Plan does not meet the Highway 10 OverlayStandards. If the structure and landscape are of superior design and quality (not a metal building), the application can meet the spirit of the Overlay. There is no land use issue. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen is required to help screen this site from residential properties to the south and east. This screen may be a wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. A sprinkler system to water landscaped areas is a requirement of the Highway 10 Design Overlay District. Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. G. ANALYSIS• Staff view of this application is that, this is a good trade off for the car wash previously approved. The building is basically the name and little else has changed. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as filed subject to Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Mr. Robert Brown was present. There was a brief discussion of this item. No problems were noted. The Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6179-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Chairman recognized Richard Wood of the staff for purposes of introducing the application and presenting the staff recommendation. wood identified this application has having a single remaining issue and this being the reason for retention on the regular agenda. The remaining item being a requested waiver of the required fencing along the east and south property lines in the form of opaque screening. wood stated, because of this requested variance that Mr. Bob Brown of the department had been instructed to visit the site and prepare comments relative to the fencing issue. Bob Brown of the staff came to the lectern and begin comments. He began those by saying the property to the south and east are basically residential. He stated that the fence could be shrubs or some other device. He said that he did not see a problem. If the developer chose to install evergreen shrubs, they should be planted closely and at least 30 inches in height at planting and be able to grow to a height of 6 feet within 3 years. Mr. Brown felt it would be especially important to provide the screening area along the east line adjacent to an existing residence. He pointed out, to the south of the nearest residence is perhaps 180 feet. This is, of course, across a wide flood plain area and the screening to the south would not be that effective. He stated his recommendation would be that screening be provided immediately south along the east property line from the southern most parking area to shield the residential lot from the activity area. He stated the shrubs should be at least 4 feet in height to effectively provide screening to the southeast. At the conclusion of Mr. Brown's comments, Chairman Lichty asked Robert Brown, the applicant, if he was prepared to present his case. Prior to Mr. Brown initiating his comments, Commissioner Nunnley identified for the record that he was going to have to excuse himself from discussion on this item and he left the room. Mr. Brown approached the lectern and stated that it was not their desire here to not provide any screening at all here. He felt it was simply more appropriate here to not do the normal privacy fence but perform a landscape treatment. The primary reason being that on the south end of the property there is a large floodway. He pointed out the property immediate on the east side of this proposed development is still residentially zoned. The property to the east is zoned commercial on the land use plan. Mr. Brown pointed out some of the features of the land use plan and what properties the commercial zoning on the plan include. Therefore, he felt there was a good chance at some point in the feature the lands in the east would be developed commercially. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6179-A But, they would be glad to do the alternative landscaping treatment. Chairman Lichty then asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of the application. There was no response. The Chairman then pointed out that there were two cards submitted in opposition. He identified the first of these as Lou Sullen. Prior to Ms. Sullen coming to the lectern, Chairman Lichty excused himself from the room temporarily and offered the chair to Commissioner Earnest. Ms. Sullen came forward and identified herself as involved in the property ownership to the east and offered specific comments relative to the proposal of this developer to construct a retaining wall along the west side of the ditch. She indicated that she would like the same treatment on her side of the ditch, and the ditch be maintained on the west side of that wall. She stated that was the only objection she had. She offered photographs in support of her comments. Commissioner Rahman asked if there was a drainage easement along the ditch at this time. Jim Lawson of the staff asked David Scherer of Public Works if he could comment on this and/or Mr. Brown, the applicant. Acting Chairman Earnest at this point injected a question too. He asked Ms. Sullen if she had additional comments on this issue. The additional comments she had to offer had to do with the state of existing structures vagrants and other activities that were detrimental to the area. She stated that she wants a fence up. The Chairman then recognized Robert Brown, representing the applicant. Mr. Brown identified for the Commission on some graphics offered that there is a large box culvert coming under State Hwy. 10. Entering the property, there is a sizable drainage ditch at this point. He pointed out that the current flow line of the ditch is sort of southwesterly through what is proposed to be the parking lot and then dumps further south into the creek. He stated that what they were basically proposing was to fill a pad on which this development can be placed much the same as they had proposed on the previous project. He stated that the scale of this project did not require the placement of the ditch in a structure underground as was originally proposed on the car wash proposal. That at this time the proposal is to build a wall that will hold up their fill work and there would then be created a ditch along their east boundary. He stated that their hope was the ditch could be done in grass and the velocity would not require a paved or hard treatment of the bottom. Commissioner Rahman then followed up on his earlier question by asking, "Was the maintenance of the ditch to remain with this property owner?" Mr. Brown stated, "Yes, that it was." Commissioner Rahman wanted to make sure that he understood the 5 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6179-A maintenance was this developer then it would be the responsibility of this developer to maintain. Robert Brown stated the drainage is currently on this property and it will remain on this property. Commissioner Hawn at this point inserted a comment that he felt if there was a problem here, then it was the lady who just made the comments. These comments would not be Mr. Brown's comments. He asked Mr. Brown, "What would be the problem with moving the wall to the property line?" Mr. Brown stated that he felt the wall was not a part of their structure and it is just a wall. Mr. Brown continued by saying no this is not the case that the wall holds up the pad on which the development would be placed. The wall was at the height indicated because the land is very low in this area. This project would be filled to raise the land out of the floodplain. There were several comments back and forth between Commissioner Hawn and Mr. Brown as to who would be flooded and who would not and what the source of the flooding would be. Mr. Brown stated that this pad development was perhaps less than what was proposed in the last approved plan. Jim Lawson interrupted the discussion to address the issue and stated to the Chairman that the staff does not have the final design of this project at this point. But, it will be worked out once this is approved. The Public Works Department will have to work through that to approve it. But for the Commission to sit here today and try to work out a design as to how tall the walls should be is not what we normally do. When the design gets to this point, perhaps the engineer, this developer and the next door neighbor could get together to meet on the site and go over the proposal. The Commission and staff are just not at the point for design at this time. This would be very unusual for us to try to work this out today. Robert Brown stated that if the next door neighbor chooses to fill their side also, then the same option is available to them. This is a similar solution for the wall along their side of the ditch. There was another extended discussion as to who would be flooded, where and when involving Mr. Brown and Commissioner Hawn. At this point, Chairman Lichty re-entered the room and reassumed the chairmanship. The Chairman recognized Commissioner Faust for comment. Her comment briefly reduced is, why this is coming to the Commission as a planned development. She stated that she did not understand exactly why this is the case. Jim Lawson of the staff offered a brief history and update. He indicated this was a planned commercial development previously approved for a multibay carwash on the site. This project M December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6179-A apparently did not work, so the owner now proposes to construct a lube and oil facility with possibly one carwash bay. Because this is an amendment to that planned development, it has to go back through the same process. He concluded his remarks by stating that the previous project proposed placed the drainage underground in a pipe, but this project will leave the ditch open. The drainage issue will be handled by Public Works at a later point. A gentleman addressing the issue from the audience asked, "What happened to the culvert or the underground drainage that was proposed on the other project? Lawson responded by saying this developer simply wanted a different approach to deal with their fill material. During the course of another lengthy discussion of issues, the Chairman directed the gentleman in the audience identify himself. He identified himself as Woody Taylor and then proceeded to offer brief comments on the wall and fence and location. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer of Public Works for his comments. Mr. Scherer offered the comment that filling in the floodplain is permitted. He also identified some floodplain floodway lines on the graphics that were presented to the Commission. He continued by saying that Mr. Robert Brown representing the owner had offered to construct the ditch to carry the drainage from that box culvert under Hwy. 10 within the boundary of their property and he would not address the screening issue. The Commission since it is presented here with a planned development could offer as condition that erosion protection for the ditch bank and make sure that it was designed for proper erosion control and make sure it stayed in there and handle the capacity of the culvert. Chairman Lichty pointed out at this point it is not the Commission's job to deal with the drainage issue. He then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the issue before the Commission was a land use issue and the land use apparently was compatible with the plan. The Commission are not planners nor engineers. Planning and Public Works should resolve problems and they should be able to do this. He stated that the Commission is not capable of measuring walls, floods and such issues. Chairman Lichty pointed out that in the staff write-up and the consent agenda, staff recommended approval subject to Public Works comments. He asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in behalf or against this application. There being none he stated the Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Rahman offered a motion to the effect that the Commission approve the application as filed subject to. The motion was interrupted at this point. 7 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6179-A The Chairman asked staff to clarify the issue on the waiver. Richard Wood of the staff identified that there was a 6 foot opaque fence required along the south and east property lines. Mr. Brown of staff comments will serve this purpose without the structural involvement. At this point, the staff recommendation is that the full screen all the way around not be required but allow the applicant to work with Mr. Brown to provide an appropriate vegetation. Jim Lawson inserted a follow-up comment that the staff would within a year go back and check the vegetation planted to make it does grow. Chairman Lichty then asked Commissioner Rahman if he would amend his motion to include a condition on meeting all of the concerns of Public Works and staff. Commissioner Rahman responded by saying yes, he would amend his motion in this manner. The motion received a second. The vote on the motion produced 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-6403 NAME: Kocinski PD -C LOCATION: 17024 Burlingame Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jerry Kocinski None 17024 Burlingame Road Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 5.04 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 to be PD -C PROPOSED USE: Motorcycle shop VARIANCES REQUESTED: None requested - street improvement is standard but no buildings are proposed - no nexus. STAFF REPORT: This item is pulled from agenda for failure of applicant to follow through on commissions instruction to return as PD -C. This is a case that came to the Commission for a plan amendment and was denied. He advises that he will follow up in order to get on the next agenda. No legal ad was provided. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Commission that this item was being placed on the Withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was being placed on the Withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was appropriately placed on the withdrawal agenda. However, it should be considered for withdrawal without prejudice which will permit the refiling within one year if the applicant so December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6403 desires. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z-6418 NAME: YMCA PCD LOCATION: Northwest corner of West 6th Street at Broadway ENGINEER• City of Little Rock None by Tim Polk 615 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 17,800 sq. ft. NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 1/2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: I-2 to be PCD PROPOSED USE: Office, Commercial, Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This application is derived from the effort of the City and others to save and reuse the former YMCA building. The City is interviewing a consultant from Winston-Salem to rehabilitate the YMCA and reuse the structure as a mixed use. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: To provide for Multifamily Residential use along with the Mixed Use of a wellness center and general offices. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To be permitted to change to a mixed use development utilizing the current structure. There is no on site parking nor is there any off site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A built up commercial site with commercial building and uses abutting on the north and east and commercial parking lots on the west and across 6th Street. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6418 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: 1. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to the current ADA standards with any planned construction. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. The capacity of private service line or lines is unknown. AP&L: Arkla: OK as submitted. Southwestern Bell: OK as submitted. Water: OK as submitted. Fire Department: County Planning: LATA: Within two blocks, most bus routes in the city make downtown turnaround. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Provide details on any 2. Provide signage plan. 3. Provide lighting plan. 4. Show hours of operation Planning Division: exterior building changes. of nonresidential elements. The site is in the Downtown District. The Plan recommends Office use. The request is for a mixed development (Commercial, Office and Residential use). There have been no land use changes in this area within the last five years. This area is currently under review by a planning committee. The committee's preferred land use option is Urban Mixed Use. The exact definition of this category has not been agreed to, nor has there been final agreement on presenting this to the Commission. Additional public comment will be requested before a final decision is made. The request is in conformance with this change and the other issues discussed by the committee. The current zone is not in conformance with the Plan. This request, while not in conformance with the current Plan, is closer than the existing zone classification. Landscape: No Comment. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6418 E. ANALYSIS• There is little to be said about the application, site plan or use proposal. There is the question of parking, but the YMCA existed on this site for years without providing conventional on site spaces. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Anne Guthrie of Staff was present. The proposal was briefly discussed. There being no design issues to discuss the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that there were no continuing issues on this proposal. Staff reported there are a couple of design matters that will be followed up in the final plan review. These deal with such things as overhanging projections of the right-of- way in the manner of canopies and signs. Public Works had no continuing concerns on the project. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to that effect was made. A motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. q December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6332 Owner: Agnes and Madison Wilson Applicant: Madison Wilson Location: 8209 Baseline Road Request: Rezone from R-2 to PCD Purpose: Pawn shop with used car sales Size: .95 acres Existing Use: Pawn shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - various industrial uses, zoned I-2; recently approved car wash/detail shop, proposed PDI South - Entergy Utility yard, zoned R-2, nonconforming I-2 East - Entergy Utility yard, zoned R-2, nonconforming I-2 West - Mobile home park, zoned R-2, nonconforming R-7 STAFF REPORT: This is an item held over from previous Planning Commission and Board action where Mr. Wilson attempted to rezone the lots for auto sales in conjunction with this pawn shop. Staff has on several occasions met with Mr. Wilson and his mother, and this time we believe a PCD will be properly filed for the next meeting. No legal ad was provided. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Commission that this item was being placed on the Withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was being placed on the Withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was appropriately placed on the withdrawal agenda. However, it should be considered for withdrawal without prejudice which will permit the refiling within one year if the applicant so December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6332 desires. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -4167-D NAME: Blair PD -C LOCATION: 9715 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Don Blair The Mehlburger Firm 9715 Colonel Glenn Road 201 South Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 568-5511 AREA: 1.14 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: 0-3 and R-2 PROPOSED USE: Expand current business which is a fibre optic service and cable repair. STAFF REPORT: This item was an issue brought to staff for variance on parking and in the course of review and field check, we noticed the use had expanded beyond the 0-3 district boundary and intensified from Office to a C-4 use. A plan revision was noted as a requirement prior to any rezoning and an application was filed. It was subsequently denied. At this time, the owner is pursuing a PCD application as that was offered as an option. However, the owner changed engineers and revised his plan and failed to make the deadline on materials for this agenda. It will be reset for the next meeting. No legal ad provided. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported to the Commission that this item was being placed on the Withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was being placed on the withdrawal Agenda due to failure of the applicant to follow through on filing the appropriate application materials. The Commission after a brief discussion determined that this item was appropriately placed on the withdrawal agenda. However, it should be considered for withdrawal without prejudice which will permit the refiling within one year if the December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4167-D applicant so desires. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -4411-B THIS MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM THE JULY 18, 1996 AGENDA FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE PCD AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS. NAME: COULSON OIL, HIGHWAY 10 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Woodland Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: ROBERT BROWN COULSON OIL COMPANY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 1434-38 Pike Ave. 10411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-422 221-7880 AREA: 1.84 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Convenience Store with Gas Pumps and Car Wash; Restaurant with Drive -Through Service PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1). Approval of the Highway 10 landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the new line of the right-of-way being dedicated with this application. 2). Approval of a variance of the regulation which requires driveways to be a minimum of 100 feet from intersections. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD development on one of the lots in the Pleasant Ridge Square subdivision, and the development of this site is a part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Square PCD development. The site is a 1.84 acre lot at the corner of Highway 10 and Woodland Rd. Construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps and an enclosed car wash, and a restaurant with drive-through service is proposed. The convenience store - restaurant is a 4,910 square foot building; the service canopy is 47 feet by 84 feet, and stands 25 feet high; and, the car wash area is 720 square feet. The applicant explains that the site December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B rises in elevation significantly at the south boundary of the tract, and development must be limited to the area closer to Highway 10. This is important, also, since buffering of the residential uses to the south is best accomplished by maintaining an undisturbed area along this south boundary. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required 15 feet of additional right-of- way along Highway 10, but wishes to measure the required 40 foot wide Highway 10 landscape buffer from the location of the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the new line when the right-of-way is dedicated. The site design also causes the driveway onto woodland Dr. to be located approximately 70 feet from Highway 10, and a variance from the requirement that driveways be at least 100 feet from intersections is required. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required additional right- of-way on woodland Dr. and to make the required street improvements on this street. The applicant states that site lighting will be directed to the vehicular use areas, and light fixtures will be below the elevation of the required fence along the south property line. Signage, the applicant states, will conform to the Highway 10 standards. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the Coulson Oil PCD. Variances from the requirement that the buffer width be measured from the right-of-way line, subsequent to the dedication of additional right-of-way, and from the requirement that driveway access points be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersecting street are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain rises from an elevation of approximately 497 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 530-535 feet at the south property line. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The area to the west is zoned R-2, as is the area to the south and east. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments that: 1) dedication of an additional 12.5 feet of right-of-way for woodland Rd. will be required; 2) Master Street Plan improvements will be required on Woodland Rd.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction may begin; 4) the cut planned for the rear of the property will require terracing, according to the recommendations of Sec. 29-190 (Every 10 feet of vertical K December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B cut requires a 10 foot terrace, with plantings.); 5) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 6) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required; and, 7) the driveway shown on Woodland Rd. is less than 100' from the intersection, and this driveway must be moved to the south to conform to the Ordinance requirements. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, pursuant to the comment for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet the Hwy. 10 Overlay requirements with the exception of a portion of the western perimeter which falls 12 feet short of the 25 foot width requirement. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen this site from the residential property to the south. This screen can either be a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. Trees are required along Highway 10 with an average spacing of 20 feet. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. An 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence will be required around 3 sides of the dumpster. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the slope area must be provided. Because of the degree of cut, Public Works will be requiring terracing to lessen the impact. Trees will be required to be planted within the terracing areas. Raised curbing, fencing, grading, or other physical protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use areas from falling rocks and erosion. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B Commercial in order to allow development of a community level development. The Planning staff adds that, if the shopping center use is not approved, and only the gas station is considered, then there is no justification for the use which could lead to the stripping along Highway 10. Ordinance No. 16,577 requires that access points shall not be placed closer than 100 feet to the right-of-way of any intersecting street. The applicant is seeking a variance of this requirement in order for the driveway to Woodland Rd. to be 70 feet ± from Highway 10. All technical requirements for the submittal have been met; there are no issues to be resolved, except as cited above. E. ANALYSIS• Public Works has indicated that no widening of Highway 10 is required at this time, and the applicant has asked for a variance to permit the measurement of the required buffer width to be taken from the existing right-of-way, in lieu of from the location of the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. If, in the future, Highway 10 is widened, the width of the landscape buffer will be lessened by the amount of improvements made. The proposed development is a community level development, and, not only is the proposed development in conflict with the land use plan, but it is "community" oriented rather than "neighborhood" oriented. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the PCD application, since the proposed development is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, reviewed with staff the comments contained in the discussion outline. There was discussion regarding the requested variance for the buffer along Highway 10, regarding the various Public Works comments, including the need for the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be a minimum of 100 feet from Highway 10, and regarding the various Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments. Mr. Brown responded that he would meet with the Public Works staff to come to an agreement on the needed modifications, and would provide the requested information as noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the PCD request to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Chairperson Chachere stated that the discussion on Items 9, Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD (Z -4411-A) and Item 10, Coulson Oil, Highway 10 -- Short -Form PCD (Z -4411-B) would be conducted as one discussion item, but that each of the items would be voted on individually. Staff presented an overview of each of the two items. Staff pointed out to the Commission that both items required a variance from the Commission on the depth of the front landscape buffer being measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. Mrs. Meredith Catlett, an attorney representing Mr. Lou Schickel, the applicant for Item 9, the Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD, spoke in support Mr. Schickel's application. Mrs. Catlett outlined the scope of the application, and stated that the proposed development consists of a neighborhood shopping center, plus an outparcel for a future office building. She told the Commission that the application is for a mixed use PCD application, and that, therefore, the issue raised regarding single -use PCD's is not applicable. Mrs. Catlett related that, as far back as 1980, the land use plan for the area had indicated that the site was appropriate for neighborhood shopping. She explained that "neighborhood shopping" centers are typically anchored by large super markets, have a maximum size of 100,000 square feet, and occupy a site of approximately 15 acres. She contended, then, that the proposed development fits into the "neighborhood shopping" category exactly, since the proposed development very nearly meets the definition requirements. She contested the staff comment that the shopping center constitutes a community -level shopping center, saying that the definition of a community -level shopping center states that such a center is anchored by two general merchandise stores, that such a center has a maximum size of 300,000 square feet, and that such a site has a maximum area of 50 acres. The proposed project, she concluded, does not fit the definition of the community -level shopping center, but does fit precisely into the definition of the neighborhood shopping center category. Mrs. Catlett added that, in 1986, the land use plan had been updated, and that the land on the south side of Highway 10 at the Southridge intersection had been designated as a commercial node. She said that the request was for a very limited expansion of the commercial node which already exists on the property. She explained that, in 1989, the Highway 10 overlay requirements were adopted, and that the proposed project meets the requirements of the overlay ordinance, as well. She stated that the developer, Mr. Schickel, lives in the area, and plans to own and manage the project for the long term. Mr. Schickel, she said, had met with 5 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B and talked with numerous persons from the area, and had met with representatives of various land owners and property owners associations in the area. She reported that she was submitting a petition, signed by over 200 area land owners, who are in support of the project. Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, presented the proposal. He pointed out that the existing E -Z Mart would be razed, and the entrance to the shopping center would be at the location of the present E -Z Mart store. This, he elaborated, would allow the new entrance to take advantage of the existing signalized intersection. He pointed out that the existing E -Z Mart has two access points, and that, when the E -Z Mart is removed and the new center is developed, the new center would have only two access point along the Highway 10 frontage. Thus, he explained, there would be no increase in access points on Highway 10. The shopping center and the Coulson Oil property to the east would, he indicated, share an internal driveway. He stated that the architecture of the proposed center was handsome, and that the architectural style would be carried over to the Coulson Oil development. Mr. David Jones, with Vogel Realty, representing Coulson Oil spoke in support of the Coulson Oil proposal. He stated that the agreement between Coulson Oil and Mr. Schickel requires that, when Coulson Oil is granted its building permit, the existing E -Z Mart, which Coulson Oil currently owns, will cease to exist, and that the number of convenience stores will remain at the same number as currently exists: the new Shell store at the eastern end of the block and the Phillips 66 store at the western end. He stated that the new Shell store will meet the Highway 10 overlay standards, whereas the E -Z Mart store does not. He stated that the Coulson Oil persons had gone "step by step" with Lou Schickel and his group to the neighborhood meetings and to other land owners in the area. The petition which has been presented by Ms. Catlett in support of the shopping center development, he said, was also a document in support of the Coulson Oil development. Mr. Mike Coulson, with Coulson Oil, stated that, after the defeat of his proposal for the opposite side of Highway 10, he had heeded the neighborhood's concerns regarding location and being a "part of the neighborhood". He said that there would be no net increase in the number of convenience stores and gas service stations on the property; that the E -Z Mart store would be closed. He said that the architectural style of the new Shell store would be consistent with the shopping center's architectural style. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, described the site development scheme, and stated that, although the Coulson Oil site is being developed on 11 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B a separate lot in the subdivision, it is an integral part of the overall Pleasant Ridge Shopping Center site. He said that the internal traffic circulation system was integrated with the shopping center site, as is the architectural style of the buildings and landscaping. He described the various uses which had been requested in the application. He stated that, counting the green space measured from the existing right-of-way line, site landscaping and green space are close to 50% of the ground space of the site. He reiterated that the site plan which has been presented has the 40 foot minimum green space along Highway 10 measured from the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the right-of-way line after dedication of additional right-of- way. He explained, though, that there are no plans to widen Highway 10; that curb -to -curb on Highway 10 is a minimum of 50 feet at the present time, and he requested approval by the Commission of this proposal. He explained that Woodland Road, the boundary street to the east, is very steep as it extends southward from Highway 10, and that it was necessary to place the access point to Woodland Rd. closer to Highway 10 than the ordinance standard of 100 feet. He explained that the proposed access point to Woodland Rd. is approximately 70 feet off Highway 10, and requested approval of this location. He went on to say that there is adequate frontage on Highway 10 for a third access point onto Highway 10 from the development, with Woodland Rd. being a forth access point for traffic onto Highway 10, but that the two developers had limited the number of access points on Highway 10 to two, plus Woodland Rd., in lieu of three plus Woodland Rd. Mr. Mark D'Auteuil, who identified himself as president of the Pleasant Forrest Property Owners' Association, stated that the Pleasant Forest neighborhood opposes rezoning of the property for commercial uses, explaining that traffic would increase through the neighborhood as a result. He said that the Association opposes any extension of commercial rezonings into the neighborhood. Mr. Donald Glowen, who identified himself as a resident of Candlewood and representing the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, affirmed that, at the neighborhood meeting with the developers, the group from the neighborhood who had attended were in support of the proposed development, but that the neighborhood still has concerns regarding land use along Highway 10. He asked that a decision on the proposed rezoning be deferred until further study of land use issues could be conducted. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, expressed opposition to rezoning unless there is clear and compelling reason for doing so. She contended that the shopping center, although meeting the definition standards for a neighborhood commercial center, is going to be drawing traffic from a larger area than "the neighborhood", and is more than a 7 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B neighborhood center. She expressed concerns regarding the likely increase of traffic which will be generated thorough the neighborhoods to the south, and she expressed concern that the buildings be visually attractive and blend in with the surroundings. Mr. Bill Mauldin, who identified himself as a long-time resident of Walton Heights, said that, at the neighborhood meeting at which the developers' plans had been presented, there were approximately 30 residents represented, but that he did not feel that the positive reaction to the proposal represented the majority of the neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood association was concerned that residents were unaware of the scope of the proposed project. He reiterated a request that the decision on the rezoning be deferred until the neighborhood has time to meet with City staff, Commission members, and the developers to study the request further. Mr. Ernie Peters, a traffic consultant for the developers, spoke, and explained that the great majority of traffic coming to the development from the south would be generated by persons from the neighborhoods to the south, and would not be traffic of persons driving through the neighborhoods from beyond these neighborhoods. He said that the signal light at the Southridge Dr. intersection will be improved, and that the developer will pay the costs of modifying it to be a four-way signal. Steve Giles, deputy City Attorney, stated that the Schickel development seems to meet the ordinance definition for a shopping center, therefore, would meet the criteria for approval as a PCD. The Coulson development, he said, since not having the mixture of uses which are required by the ordinance, would have to meet the definition requirements for a shopping center in order for it to be approved as a PCD. Mr. David Jones stated that the Coulson site is a mixed use commercial development, and, as such, meets the ordinance standard to be classified as a shopping center. He said that he felt that the Coulson proposal could be approved as a PCD. He added, though, that the proposed ordinance changes to permit single -use PCD's would clarify the situation. Mr. Tim Polk, Acting Director of Neighborhoods and Planning, related that the concern of the City and residents along Highway 10 is that there be a land use plan which promotes retention of the scenic beauty of Highway 10 and does not permit the stripping -out of the corridor. He conceded that the existing residential zoning of the site is inappropriate, but stated that commercial development is also inappropriate. He recommended that a appropriate land use of the site is a mixed office and multi -family development. The proposed development, he said, is too intense, and said that the trade area is too large for 8 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B classification as a neighborhood shopping center. He expressed concern regarding the increased traffic along Highway 10 and in the abutting neighborhoods. He stated that approval of the PCDIs would necessitate a major land use plan amendment approval by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Ball raised the question of whether one PCD could be built without the other; whether the Coulson Oil PCD could be built without the shopping center PCD being started or built. Commissioner Walker stated that it would be a catastrophe if the Coulson Oil site were developed and the shopping center were not; that the two developments need to be paired as a unified development. Mr. Schickel stated that, when the Coulson Oil development is constructed and opened, the E -Z Mart store would cease to operate as a convenience store or gas service station, but that the building would remain until it is torn down as part of the shopping center construction. He stated that the time frame for construction of the shopping center is dependent on getting a lessee for the grocery store, but that he felt that construction would begin within a year. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Coulson had related to him that he would amend the Coulson Oil PCD application to place the condition on it that construction of the Coulson Oil PCD would begin only in conjunction with the shopping center construction; that the Coulson Oil PCD would not be built until and at a different time than the shopping center is built. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Pleasant Ridge Square PCD and an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the Coulson Oil, Highway 10 PCD, to recommend approval of an amendment of the Land Use Plan which will reflect the commercial use of the property, and to recommend approval of the street access variance for the driveway location on Woodland Rd.. The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. STAFF REPORT: (JUNE 18, 1996) This issue is before the Commission to request relief from a Commission imposed condition that the Coulson PCD be constructed only when the adjacent shopping center is constructed. This is the only change proposed. The land owner does not know when the center might start but Coulson is ready to start now and has 9 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B requested site excavation approval to prepare the site. Staff will offer comment at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its comments on Item No. 22. Jim Lawson, director of Neighborhoods and Planning, briefly outlined the applicant's proposal which was a request of the Commission to relieve the developer of a commission imposed site restriction. Mr. Lawson identified the project as Coulson Oil, a convenience store and food service, which was designed as an integral part of a shopping center complex proposed by Mr. Lou Shickle on the adjacent properties to the west. Lawson pointed out that the minute record reflects that during the course of discussion of the Coulson PCD and the Shickle PCD. They were an integrated development and one should not be developed without the other. Specifically, his comment was that Commissioner Ramsay Ball at that time had concerns about building the convenience without the balance of the shopping center being in place. Lawson told the Commission that he had instructed the applicant that he was bring this item to the Commission in as much as this was not a debated item at the Board of Directors level or a specifically instructed item for inclusion in the PCD ordinance. However, there was the Commission constraint placed on the project and noted on the file. Lawson said that what staff had agreed to do is if Coulson wants to begin construction on this convenience store site and then not obtain his certificate of occupancy. (That is not open this store until the other convenience store immediately to the west is removed.) Lawson said the shopping center would be sometime before it is constructed. He felt that is was just not reasonable to maintain this restraint on this developer. Lawson also pointed out that he had obtained an agreement with Mr. David Jones, the applicant, at this time. It would be limited grading on the shopping center side of the boundary line, so as to limit the effect of the site clearing. Lawson asked David Jones respond to this statement as to whether it was appropriate and correct. Mr. David Jones stated he agreed with everything that Jim Lawson had stated except for one clarification. He stated that it was his understanding that the EZ Mart store would have to be shut down but not with the building being removed. It could not simply be operated as a convenience store. 10 December 18,1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B Acting Chairman Putnam inserted his thought at this point that perhaps it could continue to be used as a drycleaner or other retail type use. Jim Lawson then intervened in this discussion to point out that was not what he understood -the -agreement to include. He stated that he understood that it was to be removed because the existing C -Store sits at an intersection with a traffic signal conflict. Mr. Jones pointed out ultimately the C -Store would be torn down when the shopping center is constructed. Mr. Jones further stated what they are attempting to do here is proceed with getting the Coulson site developed prior to the shopping center's development. Mr. Schiekel is simply saying that if he does not get around to getting the shopping center constructed at the same timetable as the Coulson site, he is willing to agree to not allow that existing convenience store to continue as a convenience store but allow it to be rented for something else. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, inserted a comment that staff has not even discussed that prospect. A brief exchange between David Jones and Jim Lawson indicated that there was a difference of opinion as to what had been discussed or perhaps agreed upon. Chairman Putnam then offered that the minute record of the PUD hearings indicate the existing EZ Mart closes when the proposed Coulson convenience store opens. Jim Lawson indicated that he understood that it was to be removed and not simply shut down and converted to another use. Lawson then stated that he wanted to make it perfectly clear that what he thought we were doing today was dealing with this as an interpretative kind of issue. The staff has not required him to notify neighbors and we have not published a legal ad or done any of the usual kind of things that we would do for amending a PCD application. If we start talking about changing elements of the other PCD involving the other C -Store, then we have a whole new issue. He stated if this is the case, we need to start all over on an amended application and we have an whole new issue. This will involve doing new notification, legal ad and etc. Lawson stated that this was the first time he had heard this proposal attached to what we were to deal with today. Commissioner Adcock then obtained the floor for purposes of inserting a comment which she had derived from the minute record. She quoted from it a specific paragraph in the minute record which stated: "Upon completion of the Coulson convenience store that the EZ Mart would disappear and the end product would be one convenience store." 11 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B A brief discussion then followed where several persons indicated certain paragraphs on certain pages of the minute record of this issue. There was general commentary as to what each of those paragraphs meant as applied to the proposal at hand. As a result of this conversation, Jim Lawson offered a comment that the language in one paragraph left open to interpret as whether the building was simply to be left unused after EZ Mart abandoned the site or would it be utitilized for some other purpose. Mr. Jones agreed that the EZ Mart building would have to be removed at the time the shopping center is constructed. At this time, he is not disagreeing with that prospect but whether or not the building can be continued with some other use other than EZ Mart. At this point, Jim Lawson posed a question of Mr. Jones as to whether the EZ Mart was a part of the original application for the shopping center PCD. Mr. Jones responded that it was a separate zone site but it was a part of the site plan. His specific was pointed out it was not involved in the Coulson site but in the shopping center site, in as much as it lies at the intersection of South Ridge and Highway 10 which is to be a primary entry point for the shopping center. Jim Lawson asked Mr. Jones what type of uses were listed for the C -Store occupancy after the removal of the EZ Mart. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak on that issue as much as that application was Lou Schiekel and not his. Mr. Jones stated that his interpretation of it was the types of uses that were permited in the PCD would ultimately control what could occupy the EZ Mart building after the EZ Mart use is removed. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Jones what was meant by cease to exist. He responded by saying that he understood that to mean that it would not continue as a C -Store. Mr. Jones further stated that ultimately the building had to come down in as much as that was a primary entry point to the shopping center. Jim Lawson stated that he understood that comment to mean that the building had to come down. He stated that he never thought about it being occupied by any other use or activity. Commissioner Earnest pointed out that it appeared we had here a severe conflict in opinion on this subject. He stated he was at 12 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B this point not certain but perhaps we needed to discuss a deferral motion. Jim Lawson response was that based on what he heard from Mr. Jones that this is a amendment to the PCD and needs to renotify for public hearing and start all over with a review of a revised plan. Again a brief discussion occurred involving David Jones and a number of others. Following that discussion Jim Lawson asked of David Jones if the use of this EZ Mart building is going to put to. Does it have to be resolved in order for Mr. Jones to build Coulson Oil. Mr. Jones responded by stating that he could not speak for Mr. Schiekel. He stated that what we are really dealing with in this instance is something that revolves around Mr. Schiekel and his project. He stated that Coulson's understanding with Mr. Schiekel was he doesn't have any problem with Coulson starting construction of the C -Store if Mr. Jones can get the approval to do so with the understanding that the EZ Mart would cease to exist as a convenience store but would be retained in his ownership and he be able to use the building for some other business activity. Mr. Jones stated that in his reading of the language in the minute record that was his understanding. Jim Lawson stated that his recommendation to the Commission would be that we allow Mr. Jones and Coulson Oil to proceed with their development on the Coulson Oil site and with the understanding that they will not get a Certificate of Occupancy on the new store until the EZ Mart is torn down or dealt with. He pointed out that Mr. Schiekel could then file an amended PCD to clarify this other issue. He stated that he felt staff and the applicant were not on the same page on the issue and that staff never did discuss that building being used for anything else. During our discussion with Mr. Jones on this application, Chairman Putnam then offered comments having to do with access to the site and the need eventually to remove the EZ Mart building. Commissioner McCarthy then inserted a comment that she remembered the conversation around the issue of the EZ Mart and that the Commission at that time was discussing access to the Coulson Oil development. She stated there was at that time a lot of concern on the part of the Commissioners about entrance and exits off Highway 10. She stated that in the discussion of that issue that it was a specific point that access to the Coulson site would in fact be tied to access at Highway 10 at that traffic signal and that's were the issue of razing the EZ Mart begin. There was then a discussion between Mr. Jones, Mr. Putnam and others discussing the location of curb cuts or excess points to 13 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B serve the Coulson site as well as the shopping center, with Mr. Jones pointing out that this Coulson site did not require the signal access point at this time but that there was another entrance to Highway 10 at the Western boundary of the Coulson site, and that would be constructed with the Coulson development. At this point David Scherer of the Public Works department came forward and presented a graphic illustrating the neighborhood of Highway 10, Rodney Parham and Woodland Heights. This graphic indicated the basic shopping center layout, the Coulson site, the EZ Mart and other surrounding properties. David Scherer offered a lengthy explanation of what was presented on the map and his opinion as how to apply it to the proposal. He addressed several questions to Mr. Jones as to exactly what they proposed to do. Mr. Jones indicated again that they would be building an acces to the Coulson site directly from Highway 10 at their West boundary and that was what was basically approved along with excess to Woodland Heights road. Jim Lawson stated at this point that he was not comfortable with this issue at all and he thinks this issue needs to go to the City Board for an amended PCD. David Jones stated that he was not entirely certain that this was all that different and he felt the real issue here was perhaps the EZ Mart building. Jim Lawson reminded Mr. Jones that in a letter he wrote several weeks ago that before he obtained a C/O for the new convenient store that the EZ Mart would be torn down. After additional give and take comments between Mr. Jones and Mr. Lawson, Mr. Jones offered to accept a deferral of this issue for a period of two weeks, which would of course offer the opportunity to have more Commissioners present and Mr. Schiekel in attendance and that maybe Mr. Schiekel will perhaps go ahead and agree to tear the building down. Jim Lawson stated that if in fact Mr. Schiekel is going to want what Mr. Jones first discussed is going to require a Legal Ad in the public hearing by the Planning Commission and we don't have time to advertise a legal ad before the next meeting in two weeks. But if Mr. Schiekel came into that meeting and agreed to go ahead and tear that building down, that we are close to what staff had already agreed to with Mr. Jones and that would be alright. If Mr. Schiekel wants to pursue the idea of putting another use in that building then Mr. Lawson stated he thinks that is an amendment to the PCD that requires a complete review. Chairman Putnam addressed the meeting by saying he thought Mr. Schiekel was going to need to make these decisions and that 14 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B during the two weeks Mr. Jones could get with him and they could make a determination on Mr. Schiekel approach, and Mr. Schiekel was the key person to make the decision in this instance. Mr. Jones stated that he was comfortable with the interpretation as he was hearing it from Staff and the Commission, and asked that in the meantime let him have the two week deferral and he would meet with Mr. Schiekel and Mr. Coulson. Mr. Coulson is only absent from the meeting because he is out of town on this occassion and he would hope to resolve the issue in two weeks or not at all. Jim Lawson stated that he did want to resolve this, he didn't want to leave the issue were in two weeks Mr. Schiekel walks in and says he wants to re use the EZ Mart site for some other retail use and if we haven't done a legal ad and we can't deal with the issue. Chairman Putnam voiced a similar comment. Commissioner Brandon then offered a motion for the floor, a motion that this item be deferred for a period of two weeks which would be August 1, 1996,. The motion was seconded. Chairman Putnam then asked for a vote on the motion prior to the vote a question was proposed by Commissioner Adcock as to whether or not the Commission could defer this item for two weeks. Cindy Dawson of the City Attorney office responded by stating yes the Commission could do so. Chairman Putnam then asked for a showing of hands on the vote for this produced a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 open position. STAFF REPORT: This item was not reviewed by the Subdivision Committee since the only issue before the Commission is a request to extend the time of development three additional years. The Commission recently approved an extension for the companion shopping center for three years for Mr. Lou Schiekel. Staff has notified both Walton Heights and Pleasant Forest neighborhoods of the hearing but received no response. Staff recommends approval. 15 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Planning Staff reported that there were no continuing issues for discussion on this item because it is not a design matter but a time extension request for a PCD that is about to expire. Staff reported that there were possibly some neighborhood residents which would appear to oppose the project. However, this did not materialize. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the item be placed on the Consent Approval agenda for a three year time extension. A motion to this effect was made. The motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. 16 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: S-867-GGG NAME: Carrington Park Subdivision Site Plan LOCATION: SE corner of Rahling Road at perimeter DEVELOPER: Davis Development 250 Corporate Center Court Stockbridge, GA 30281 ENGINEER: Joe White, Jr. White-Daters and Assoc., Inc. 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 13.4 acres NUMBER OF UNITS: 212 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING• MF -18 BACKGROUND: ALLOWED USES: Multifamily This MF zoned site is a site built into the Land Use Plan and the Deltic Plan. There has been no development in the immediate area. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The project is for 18 upscale apartment buildings containing 212 units and a club house. The project is laid out to provide court yard areas between the buildings with large interior landscaped areas. Landscaping will exceed ordinance. The building exterior will be stone, dryvit, brick or siding. The exterior appearance of the buildings will have an expensive single family appearance. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: An undeveloped site in an area of the Deltic Holdings just now opening to construction. The site is tree covered with a low area running southwest to northeast. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received. Deltic owns most abutting land with John Shackleford owning the balance. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-GGG D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Name of future arterial should be Wellington Village Road. 2. Show dedication of 90 feet of right-of-way for future arterial street from Rahling Road with additional right- of-way for right turn lanes on Rahling and future arterial. 3. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 4. Stormwater detention per ordinance applies to this property. 5. Prior to construction provide design of future arterial conforming to the Master Street Plan. 6. Provide striping and signage plans for the development, for Traffic Engineering approval. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Capacity contribution analysis required. Contact Wastewater for details. AP&L: No comment at this writing. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Easements required. Water: A water main extension will be required to serve property. On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $300.00 per acre applies in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No bus service in this area. Planning Division: No Comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Better dimension drives, parking, buildings. 2. Verify permission to build on gas easement. 3. Correct building labels to match chart. 4. Uses in clubhouse. E December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-GGG G. H. 5. Radial parking at clubhouse discouraged with such large drive openings. 6. Some parking areas are over wide. Landscape• Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements when averaged out. However, portions of the proposed land use buffers drop below the full requirement of 36 feet in width to the south and 40 feet in width to the east. Quite a number of the proposed interior driveways and parking lots have widths far in excess of that required. A driveway width at 24 to 26 feet is usually sufficient. Cutting back on excessive paved areas will allow more area for landscape and create more of a park -like setting. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen this site from the residential properties to the south and east. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used their locations should be shown. Dumpsters are required to have an eight foot high screen on three sides. Efforts should be made to save as many of the remaining trees as possible. Prior to a building permit being issued, three copies of a detailed landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist. He may be reached at 371-4864. ANALYSIS• This MF -18 project is designed to produce about 15 units per acre. There is a significant amount of landscaping and open space, more than enough parking and an exterior design superior to the usual apartments. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff feels that this is a good project given the site. We find only minor details in the plan that require attention. We recommend approval subject to follow through on the Public Works and Planning comments. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-867-GGG SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The project was represented by Joe White, Jr. Mr. White offered a brief overview of the project and then presented a revised plan that moved the clubhouse and entry point. Staff pointed out that a review had not been made and copies should be filed with Planning prior to the public hearing. The discussion moved to the manner in which the new drive interplayed with the access points drives and clubhouse. The Committee forwards the plan to the full Commission for final review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Planning Staff reported there were no continuing issues on this project. All of the matters raised by Public Works and Staff have been resolved. The Staff and Public Works recommend approval of the apartment project. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to this effect was made. The motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 absent. 4 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1167 NAME: Eubanks Car Wash Subdivision Site Plan LOCATION: 2420 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/ARCHITECTS: Robert H. Eubanks, III Whittenburg, Delony and Davidson #6 Sunset Drive John C. Sloan Little Rock, AR 72207 320 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 840 688-8884 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6681 AREA: 15,000 sq. ft NUMBER OF UNITS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: I-2 ALLOWED USES: Retail, Warehouse, Various WAIVERS: Sidewalks on both streets BACKGROUND: This is a site with a history as an auto sales lot. It rears upon a railroad track and occupies a high intensity commercial location. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To construct a car wash in a central location on the lot with the existing building to be retained as office. The outside car wash finish will be identical to the existing building. It will be automatic. On site parking will be restripped and additional landscaping added. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A somewhat small commercial lot that is mostly paved and contains one small building. It shares one driveway with the convenience store to the east. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: No at this writing. The Hillcrest Neighborhood was notified. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1167 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet (an additional 5 feet from previous dedication) from the centerline of Cantrell Road including a 20 feet radial dedication for right-of-way at southwest corner of property. 2. Dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from the center line of Riverfront Drive. 3. With development construct sidewalks along Cantrell Road and Riverfront Drive. 4. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 5. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. Contact the AHTD for work within the State Highway right-of-way. 8. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. 9. Landscaping is shown in right-of-way which requires a franchise application. 10. Revise plans to show current 50' right-of-way on Cantrell and proposed right-of-way dedication of 55, from centerline including 20, radial. E. UTILITIES• Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected. AP&L: No response at this writing. Arkla: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: Water: Meter location may be different than shown on plans. Fire Department: County Planning: No comment, inside city. CATA: No. 21 bus route serves Cantrell Road with all day service. Planning Division: No Comment. Landscape: The proposed shrubs and trees along Cantrell Road will be located in the public right-of-way. Therefore, it will be PA December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO • S-1167 necessary to obtain a franchise from the city before installation. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: 1. Identify use of existing building on plan. (Part time office, etc.) G. ANALYSIS: There is little to say about this plan. The use and buildings complement adjacent uses and offer little adverse effect on the neighborhood. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the site plan subject to resolving Public Works issues. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) The applicant was represented. There was a brief discussion. The issues raised by Public Works were felt to be something the owner can handle including right-of-way. Once the centerline of Cantrell has been found. Sidewalks were not acceptable to the owner. Staff said research would be done to see if sidewalk had been waived earlier on the plat. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff reported that this applicant withdrew his request for a sidewalk waiver. This was the only continuing issue for resolution. The Staff supports the item for the Consent Approval agenda. Staff and Public Works recommends approval as now presented. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Approval agenda. A motion to this effect was made. A motion to approve the Consent Approval agenda passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent. 3 December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z -2232-A NAME: LOCATION• Westpark Executive Building - Conditional Use Permit 7101 W. 12th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Moore Investments/Daryl Peeples of Flake and Kelley PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the use of 750 square feet of the existing office building as a massage therapy clinic. The property is zoned I-2. NOTE: The applicant has not provided adequate site plan information to allow staff time to properly review this application. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be deferred to the February 5, 1998 Subdivision agenda. THERE ARE NO GRAPHICS FOR THIS ITEM. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) The Staff informed the Commission that the applicant failed to submit adequate site plan information to staff. Staff recommended deferral of this item to the February 5, 1998 Subdivision Agenda. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 5, 1998 Agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z -5464-A NAME• LOCATION• Lewis - Conditional Use Permit 901 and 905 Selma Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Danny R. Lewis PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a duplex on Lot 1, Industrial Park Addition (901 Selma Street) and a duplex on Lot 2, Industrial Park Addition (905 Selma Street). The structures will be moved from the Children's Hospital area. The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed duplex sites are located at the southeast corner of East 9th and Selma Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This general area north of East 10th Street is made up primarily of smaller single-family residences. There is a Little Rock Housing Authority multifamily development north of the proposed site, across East 9th Street. The Little Rock Airport is approximately one (1) block to the south. There are also a large number of vacant lots in this general area. The proposed duplexes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. The East Little Rock Neighborhood Association and the East End Civic League have been notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to Lot 1 will be gained from East 9th Street, and access to Lot 2 will be from Selma Street. Parking will be provided to serve both dwelling units. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5464-A 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: 1. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 2. A 20' radial dedication of right-of-way at the northwest corner of property. 3. Lot 1 driveway is too close to 9th Street, move driveway to 5 feet from south property line. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a duplex on Lot 1, Industrial Park Addition (901 Selma Street) and a duplex on Lot 2, Industrial Park Addition (905 Selma Street). The property is zoned R-3. The applicant wishes to move the existing duplex structures from the Children's Hospital area to the above mentioned lots. The structures must be moved or torn down due to Children's Hospital expansion. The duplex structures are one story in height. The proposed placement of the structures exceeds the minimum ordinance setback requirements. Parking will be provided to serve each duplex. Placement of the two duplex structures should prove to be an asset to this area of the city, as there are a large number of vacant lots in this general area. The proposed duplexes should have no adverse effect on the area. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the Public Works comments. 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5464-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Staff informed the Committee that the applicant, Mr. Lewis, was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. Staff spoke with Mr. Lewis earlier in the week and informed him of the Public works requirements. Mr. Lewis stated that he had no problem with these requirements and would submit a revised site plan showing the new location of the driveway on Lot 1. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z -5672-A NAME: LOCATION• Hughes - Revised Conditional Use Permit 10020 Nash Lane OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert and Debra Hughes PROPOSAL: A revised conditional use permit is requested to allow for the permanent placement of the existing 28 foot by 60 foot multisectional manufactured home. The Planning Commission approved temporary placement (5 years) of the manufactured home on April 20, 1993. The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the west side of Nash Lane, approximately 700 feet south of Sibley Hole Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site is located immediately south of the River of Life Assembly of God Church. Directly west of and adjacent to this site is a large area of undeveloped 0-3 zoned property and a large I-2 zoned tract which is used as an equipment storage yard. The properties south and east of this site are made up of single-family residences on large lots. The Pinedale Subdivision is located approximately 700 feet to the east, and was notified of the public hearing. Permanent placement of the multisectional manufactured home should not have an adverse effect on the general area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing driveway from Nash Lane. December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5672-A Parking is provided to serve the single-family dwelling. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: A development permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283. Minimum Finish Floor elevation of 295 is required. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicants are requesting a revised conditional use permit to allow for the permanent placement of the existing 28 foot by 60 foot multisectional manufactured home on the R-2 zoned property located at 10,020 Nash Lane. On April 20, 1993 the Planning Commission approved temporary placement of the manufactured home on the property for a period of five (5) years. This condition was placed on the application by the applicants who planned to construct a site -built home on the property within that five (5) years, and remove the manufactured home. The applicants state that they cannot afford to construct the new home before the April 20, 1998 deadline. It is still their intention to construct a new site -built home and remove the manufactured home from the property, but they do not know when that might be and do not wish to have another time restriction placed on the manufactured home. Due to the fact that the manufactured home will eventually be removed from the site, the applicants would like a variance from minimum siting standard "b. removal of all transport elements". The applicants wish to leave the two tongues on the structure and screen each with evergreen shrubs and a lattice fence. The current placement of the manufactured home greatly exceeds all setback requirements for R-2 zoning. With continuing compliance with the minimum siting standards (except b.), the proposed permanent placement of the K December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5672-A manufactured home should have no adverse effect on the general area. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the revised conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comment 2. compliance with the following minimum siting standards: a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. c. Permanent foundation d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. 3. Staff recommends approval of the variance request from siting standard "b. removal of all transport elements". Screening shrubs and a lattice fence will be installed to screen each tongue section. 4. The manufactured home will be removed from the site when a new home is constructed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Robert and Debra Hughes were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Hughes stated that it was still his intention to site - build a home on this property in the future and remove the manufactured home. Mr. Hughes stated that he was unsure as to when he would be financially able to construct the new house, therefore he did not want to establish another time limit on the manufactured home. Mr. Hughes stated that the transport elements (tongues) were still on the manufactured home, and in keeping with the intent to remove the structure in the future he would like the transport elements to stay on the home. He stated that he would screen each tongue area of the home. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5672-A After brief further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z -6181-A NAME• LOCATION• Hodges - Conditional Use Permit Woodland Drive (East End) OWNER/APPLICANT: Rolling Pines Limited/ Thomas L. Hodges PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of five (5) multisectional manufactured homes on five (5) lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-19, 54, 61 and 99). The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is located at the easterly end of woodland Drive. Woodland Drive runs east off of Sardis Road, approximately 3/4 mile south of Alexander Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II is surrounded by single family residential uses and zoning. The property north, south and east of this site is vacant and wooded. There are a number of single family residences located to the west (along woodland Drive) between this subdivision and Sardis Road. There are two existing single family residences within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 22 and 63). With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. The Rolling Pines Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6181-A 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: A residential driveway will serve each of the five lots. The applicant will provide off-street parking for each of the five manufactured home sites. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: No Comments. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of five (5) multisectional manufactured homes on five (5) separate lots within the Rolling Pines Subdivision, Phase II (Lots 18-19, 54, 61 and 99). The property is zoned R-2. On October 10, 1996, the applicant requested a conditional use permit for the placement of multisectional manufactured homes on 19 of the lots within this subdivision. That application failed to receive enough votes for passage (5 positive votes with 9 commissioners present). The applicant appealed to the Board of Directors, who upheld the Planning Commission's decision. The case is currently pending in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Fourth Division. Staff has asked the City Attorney's Office to update the Commission in this matter. The applicant is proposing a building envelope (buildable area) for each of the five lots which will allow for a multisectional manufactured home. It appears that all of the building envelopes meet minimum ordinance requirements regarding building setbacks and no variances are required. There will be a single access and the applicant will provide street parking space for each dwellings. OA point to each of the lots at least one (1) off - of the proposed December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -6181-A The majority of the land surrounding this subdivision is vacant and heavily wooded with approximately two dozen existing single family homes west of this subdivision along Woodland Drive. With compliance with the ordinance established minimum siting standards, the placement of these five (5) manufactured homes should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. As part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting that the $135.00 filing fee be waived. Based on the fact that staff took this item as a new application, conducting site inspections and complete staff review, staff cannot support this request. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the following minimum siting standards as required by the Little Rock zoning Ordinance, Section 36-254(d)(5): a. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. b. Removal of all transport elements. c. Permanent foundation. d. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. e. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. f. Underpinning with permanent materials. g. All homes shall be multisectional. h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. 2. The applicant pay the required $135.00 filing fee. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Clayton Blackstock was present, representing the application. Staff gave the Committee a brief history of the property and a description of the current proposal. Staff noted that the site plan submitted for each of the five lots were the same site plans previously reviewed by the Commission. Each site plan shows a building envelope which conforms with the ordinance setback requirements. 3 December 'R, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6181-A After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Tommy Hodges, J. D. Harper and Marsha Barnes were present, representing the application. There were three persons present to oppose the application. Staff gave a brief description of the project and a recommendation of approval. Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that the proposal manufactured homes would comply with the minimum siting standards as required by ordinance. Steve Giles, City Attorney, addressed the Commission concerning the pending lawsuit on this property. Mr. Giles stated that if this application were approved, Mr. Hodges would dismiss his lawsuit. He presented the Commission with a memorandum outlining the issues to be concerned with in this matter. Mr. Hodges stated that he would dismiss his lawsuit if the application were approved. J. D. Harper of the Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association spoke in support of the application. Roger Free addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Mr. Free presented a petition and letter to the Commission. Mr. Free stated that the manufactured homes would have a negative impact on his neighborhood. Mr. Free reviewed his letter with the Commission, including the distinction between manufactured homes and mobile homes and the codes relating to building construction. Mr. Free also discussed the Bill of Assurance for the neighborhood. Mr. Giles asked Mr. Free what aspects of the application he was opposed to. Mr. Free stated that he was concerned as to the quality of the proposed manufactured homes and the depreciation rate. He stated that manufactured homes are inferior to site -built homes. Chairman Lichty stated that there is a difference between manufactured homes and mobile homes. He asked Mr. Hodges if he planned to use a higher quality manufactured home. Mr. Hodges responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lichty stated that the Commission has no authority over a Bill of Assurance. 4 December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6181-A Brent Reeves also spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that if this application is approved the neighborhood would go down. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Harper the life expectancy of a manufactured home. Mr. Harper stated that the life expectancy of a manufactured home is 55.8 years based on a recent study. There was a brief discussion regarding the transportation of manufactured homes and the various building codes and construction standards. Commissioner Rahman asked about the financing of manufactured homes. Mr. Harper stated that the financing of manufactured homes is the same as site -built homes; conventional 30 -year loans, etc. There was a brief discussion pertaining to the definition of a manufactured home and the nation-wide trends of manufactured homes. Commissioner Nunnley asked how the value of manufactured homes is retained. Mr. Harper quoted another recent study which showed that the value of manufactured homes appreciated at a rate at least equal to site -built homes. A motion was made to approve the application. There was additional discussion relating to the existing law suit. The previous motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 5 nays, 3 abstention and 1 absent. The application was denied. Several of the commissioners explained their vote. 5 December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-6423 LOCATION• Helms - Conditional Use Permit 620 Rock Street OWNER/APPLICANT: James and Tonya Helms PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the operation of a law office within a portion of the existing residential structure (four-plex). The property is zoned HDR (High -Density Residential). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The property is located on the west side of Rock Street, between East 6th and East 7th Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This general area is made up of a mixture of residential and office uses (single-family and multifamily residential, general/professional offices, churches, etc.). Utilizing a portion of this residential structure as a law office, with the balance occupied as a residence, should have no adverse effect on the general area. The Downtown and MacArthur Park Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Four (4) off-street parking spaces currently exist at the rear of the building. Access to these parking spaces is gained through the existing alley. Seven (7) off-street parking spaces are required (five (5) for the proposed office use and two (2) for the single family use). The applicant is requesting a variance from the ordinance off-street parking requirement for three (3) parking spaces. There is two-hour parking on both sides of Rock Street within this block. December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6423 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: No issues. 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 law office within the existing residential structure at 620 Rock Street. The property is zoned HDR (High -Density Residential). Within the Central Little Rock Urban Renewal project area, professional offices are a permitted conditional use on properties zoned HDR. The existing structure contains four residential apartment units. The applicant proposes to use one of the downstairs units for the law office initially, eventually utilizing the entire first floor for the office. The second floor will be a single-family residence for the property owner. Typical office hours will be from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. As part of the proposal, the property owner, Mike Helms, has requested that the conditional use permit (if approved) run with the property owner and not the land. If Mr. Helms ever sells the property, the conditional use permit would become null and void. Mr. Helms is making this request to alleviate concerns of one of the neighbors. The applicant is proposing erection of one ground mounted sign. This sign must be approved by the MacArthur Park Historic District Commission. Seven (7) off-street parking spaces are required for the proposed use. There are four (4) existing parking spaces on the site, taking access from the alley. The applicant is requesting a variance for the remaining three (3) spaces. The MacArthur Park Historic District Commission has indicated support of this variance request, due to the fact that they typically discourage construction of new parking lots within the district. 2 December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6423 The applicant has stated that no exterior changes will be made to the structure. The applicant should be aware that any future changes to the exterior must be approved by the MacArthur Park Historic District Commission. Given the mixture of residential and non-residential uses in this immediate area, the conversion of part of this structure to an office (with the balance occupied as a residence) should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditional use permit will run with the property owner, Mr. Helms, and not the land. If Mr. Helms sells the property or ceases to operate his law office at this location, the conditional use permit would become null and void. This condition was offered by Mr. Helms. 2. Any new signage must be approved by the MacArthur Park Historic District Commission. 3. There will be no exterior changes to the structure. 4. Staff recommends approval of the variance for reduced number of parking spaces. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Mike Helms was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Staff noted the required and existing parking for the site. The variance from the off-street parking requirement was briefly discussed. Staff noted that the MacArthur Park Historic District Commission representative had indicated approval of the parking variance. Staff also noted that no new construction or exterior changes to the structure are proposed. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 3 December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6423 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-6424 NAME: Bearden - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: #8 Alpine Court OWNER/APPLICANT: Sallie Pierce/Don Bearden PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a two-story accessory dwelling. The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The property is located on the west side of Alpine Court, approximately 1/2 block north of west Markham Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The properties in the immediate area are zoned R-3 and contain single-family residential uses. The proposed accessory dwelling is a use that would not be out -of - character for the Hillcrest Neighborhood. There are other accessory dwellings in this general area. This use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. The Hillcrest Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site is gained by utilizing an existing residential drive from Alpine Court. Parking is provided on the site to serve both dwellings. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6424 5. Public Works Comments: No issues. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: L. R. Wastewater: Sewer main located under main structure at #8 Alpine Court. Care should be taken during construction on property. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a two-story accessory dwelling. The property is located at #8 Alpine Court and is zoned R-3. There is currently an accessory building on the site which is in a state of disrepair. This accessory building will be removed from the site and replaced with the new accessory dwelling. The new accessory building will be approximately 985 square feet in area. Approximately 827 square feet of the structure will be used as a dwelling, with the remaining 158 square feet being used as a workshop and storage to serve the principal dwelling. The applicant has stated that the accessory dwelling will be a residence for his mother and in the event that his mother moves out, the accessory dwelling would function as a rental property. The accessory dwelling will not have separate utility meters as proposed by the applicant. The proposed setbacks for the new structure comply with minimum ordinance requirements. Parking will be provided to serve both the principal and accessory dwellings. The applicant is requesting three variances with this application which are related to the proposed structure's size: 1. A variance is requested for total lot coverage. The accessory dwelling when added to the principal dwelling exceeds the maximum thirty (30) percent lot coverage as allowed by ordinance. The proposed lot coverage is approximately 34 percent. KI December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6424 2. A variance is requested for required rear lot coverage. A total of 30 percent of the required rear yard can be utilized for an accessory building (420 square feet). The applicant is proposing 492 square feet of coverage. 3. A variance is also requested for the accessory dwelling's size. A maximum of 700 square feet is allowed for an accessory dwelling. The applicant is proposing 827 square feet. Staff feels that the variances requested are very minor in nature and should have no adverse affect on the surrounding properties. The applicant is also proposing that the architecture and exterior finish of the accessory dwelling be compatible with the principal structure and other structures in this general area. With this in mind, staff feels that the proposed accessory dwelling will have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Little Rock Wastewater Utility Comment 2. The accessory dwelling will be limited to 827 square feet in area. 3. The accessory dwelling will not have separate utility meters. This condition was offered by the applicant. 4. Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Don Bearden was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Staff reviewed and explained the requested variances for lot coverage and building size with the Committee. Staff noted the L. R. Wastewater Utility Comment and instructed the applicant to contact the utility prior to construction. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6424 After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 22 NAME• LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• FILE NO.: Z-6425 Lutheran High School - Conditional Use Permit 6711 W. Markham Street Olivet Baptist Church/ Lutheran High School, Inc. by Gary Langlais PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to convert the existing church/school facilities to a High School (9th through 12th grades). The property is zoned R-5 and is currently occupied by Olivet Baptist Church and School. No new construction is proposed with this application. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The existing church site is located at the southeast corner of West Markham and Hughes Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: Existing single-family residential uses are located to the west across Hughes Street and to the north across West Markham Street. There is one single-family residence located immediately south, with the Christ Lutheran Church and School located further south. The property immediately east of this site was recently approved for the expansion of the Christ Lutheran Church and School facilities. Converting the existing church/school facilities to a high school should not have an adverse effect on the general area. The site has been used for some time as a church and private school. The Briarwood and Apache Crime Watch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6425 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site is gained by utilizing three drives from Hughes Street. A total of 108 off-street parking spaces is required by ordinance. The existing site contains 108 parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers: Existing trees located in areas designated on the site plan submitted as "landscaped lawn areas" should be retained. These fine stately trees are an asset to the area and some of which are required by ordinance. 5. Public Works Comments: 1. West Markham is listed on the Master Street Plan as a reduced standard minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 35 feet from centerline of West Markham including a 20 foot radial dedication at the northwest corner of the property. 2. The applicant be required to contribute to a possible future traffic signal at Hughes Street and West Markham Street when a signal is warranted or requested. Public Works recommends that the applicant and Christ Lutheran Church and School together contribute 25% of the cost of a possible future traffic signal at the previously mentioned intersection. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to convert the existing church/school facilities to a high school (9th through 12th grades). The property is located at 6711 West Markham Street and is zoned R-5. The property is currently occupied by Olivet Baptist Church and School. The existing structure is a multi- story, 40,000 square foot building which sits on approximately 4.8 acres. The applicant plans to make no exterior changes to the building or parking area. Therefore, no new construction is proposed. 2 December A, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6425 The applicant has stated that the existing building will accommodate approximately 18 classrooms. The school plans to have one (1) ninth grade class of 25 students the first year, and ultimately two (2) classes each for grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. The total future enrollment would be 200 students. The hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, with occasional night activities. A total of 108 off-street parking spaces is required by ordinance, based on the total number of classrooms proposed. There are 108 parking spaces existing on the site. No new signage is proposed with this application. The school will change the copy on the existing church signs. As noted in paragraph 5, Public Works is requiring that the applicant contribute to a possible future traffic signal at Hughes and W. Markham Streets when it is warranted or requested. The applicants have stated that they would be willing to participate in the cost of a future traffic signal at this intersection when it is warranted, however, they would not be financially able to participate for approximately five years. The applicants also stated that they cannot speak for Christ Lutheran Church. Christ Lutheran Church stated (as part of their proposal for their recent conditional use permit) that they would be willing to participate in the cost of the future traffic signal. Based on the past and present use of the property, the conversion of the existing church/school facilities to a high school should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The applicant is planning to retain all of the landscaped areas on the property in their current state. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 3. The maximum enrollment will be 200 students. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6425 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Gary Langlais and Don Henson were application. Staff gave a brief conditional use permit. (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) present representing the description of the proposed David Scherer and Bruce Kemmet reviewed the Public Works issues. Mr. Scherer noted that Public Works will request that the high school participate in the traffic signal that will be installed at the Hughes Street and West Markham Street intersection in the future, when conditions warrant the signal. Mr. Henson stated that the school would submit a written response to staff concerning Public Work's request. There was additional discussion concerning the future traffic signal. The applicant noted that the areas noted on the site plan as "landscaped lawn areas" would be maintained in their current state. Staff noted that the existing number of parking spaces complies with ordinance requirements and no variance is required. After further discussion concerning the proposed school use and the existing church and school use, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Ralph Olson and Gary Langlais were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the application and recommendation of approval. Ralph Olson addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that he agrees with the conditions required by staff. Dana Deree addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not opposed to the use of the property as a high school. He stated that he had concerns relating to the volume of traffic in the area. He offered several suggestions to help ease the traffic problem. Nora Harris also expressed traffic concerns to the Commission. 4 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6425 Jim Thewatt also had concerns relating to the volume of traffic and the driveway placement on the church/school property. Sue Thweatt stated concerns relating to parking and the possibility of on -street parking. Roxane Tackett also addressed the Commission stating concerns relating to the traffic in the area. Bobbie Hempel discussed parking concerns. Commissioner Adcock asked David Scherer to address the traffic concerns. David Scherer, of Public Works, made several suggestions which might help the traffic problem in the area. This included "no parking" signs on Hughes Street, "no through traffic" signs, and speed bumps. Ralph Olson stated that the Lutheran High School and the Christ Lutheran Church are two different organizations. There was a general discussion relating to traffic concerns in this area. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 5, 1998 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays and 1 absent. The Commission deferred the item to allow time for the neighborhood and applicant to meet with Public Works, representatives to discuss the traffic concerns. 5 December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: Z-6426 NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• N.A.M.C. - Conditional Use Permit 1219 S. Tyler Street National Association of Minority Contractors, Little Rock Chapter/Addie Morris PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the use of the existing residential structure as a duplex. The property is zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the east side of South Tyler Street, one block south of West 12th Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: Single-family residential uses are located east and south (across West 13th Street) of this site. There is one single-family residence located immediately north of this site, with a mixture of commercial and office uses located further north along West 12th Street. vacant residential lots are located to the west across Tyler Street, with commercial uses located just further west along Fair Park Blvd. The proposed use of this property as a duplex should prove to be compatible with the general area. The Oak Forest Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing an existing residential driveway from West 13th Street. Off-street parking will be provided to serve both dwelling units. December i8, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6426 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline of Tyler Street and West 13th Street including a 20 foot radial dedication at intersection. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the use of the existing residential structure as a duplex. The property is located at 1219 South Tyler and is zoned R-3. The existing structure was originally built as a duplex and was moved to this site from the Highland Court area rather than being torn down. One of the two dwelling units is currently occupied, with the other being vacant. Separate utilities are proposed for each dwelling unit. Parking will be provided to serve each dwelling unit. The existing structure currently has a 27.5 foot front yard setback (Tyler Street side). With an additional right-of-way dedication of 5 feet, this setback will drop to 22.5 feet, below the required 25 foot front yard setback. However, the front porch section of the structure will be the only portion of the structure which extends into the required front yard. The applicant is requesting a variance for the reduced front yard setback. All other setbacks exceed minimum ordinance requirements. The use of the existing structure as a duplex should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. The structure sits on two lots where, according to the applicant, two houses once existed. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comment 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6426 2. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for reduced front yard setback. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Addie Morris was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. Bruce Kemmet, of Public Works, stated that right-of-way dedications are needed for Tyler Street and West 13th Street. Staff noted that the additional 5 feet of right-of-way dedication on Tyler Street would cause the front porch to be within the front yard setback by 2.5 feet. The applicant requested a variance from the setback requirement. Staff also noted that the two units would have separate utility meters. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Addie Morris was present, representing the application. There was one objector present. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal and a recommendation of approval. Addie Morris addressed the Commission in support of the application. Rolysha Douglas also spoke in favor of the application. She stated that she currently lives in one-half of the duplex structure. Wali Caradine also spoke in support of the item. Joe White addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. He stated that he is opposed to rental units in the area and that this would lower property values. There was a brief discussion regarding the size of the residential structure. Mrs. Morris gave additional information to the Commission regarding the movement of this structure to this lot. 3 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6426 There was additional discussions regarding separate utilities and using the structure as a rental property. A motion was made to approve the application. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. 4 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: Z-6427 NAME: Deltic Water Tank - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Just east of 20,901 Chenal Parkway OWNER/APPLICANT: Deltic Timber Corp./White- Daters by Tim Daters PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 55 foot tall water storage tank. The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed tank site is located just east of the St. Margaret's Episcopal Church property at 20,901 Chenal Parkway. St. Margaret's is located on the east side of Chenal Parkway, approximately one mile south of Chenonceau Blvd. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: St. Margaret's Episcopal Church is located just west of the proposed water tank site. The properties to the north, south and east are undeveloped and heavily wooded. The proposed water tank site will be entirely surrounded by heavily wooded property and should have no adverse effect on the general area. The Aberdeen Court and Johnson Ranch Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained through the LaMarche Subdivision to the south. The 20 foot wide access drive will be constructed of concrete where adjacent to single-family lots and gravel throughout the wooded area. In the future, access to the site will be from the future minor arterial street to the north. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6427 A gravel area around the base of the tank will allow parking of service vehicles. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments. 5. Public Works Comments: 1. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 2. Repair of curb and gutter and/or sidewalk damaged during or prior to construction with construction. 3. Prior to construction obtain barricade permit for work done within right-of-way. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 55 foot tall water storage tank on R-2 zoned property. The proposed site is located within a heavily wooded area just east of the St. Margaret's Episcopal Church at 20,901 Chenal Parkway. The proposed water tank will be 65 feet in diameter with a maximum storage capacity of one million gallons of water. Initial access to the tank site will be through the LaMarche Subdivision. The 20 foot wide gated access drive will be concrete where adjacent to Lots 72 and 73 of the LaMarche Subdivision with the remainder of the drive being gravel. Future access to the site will be from the future minor arterial street to the north. At that time the initial access drive between Lots 72 and 73 of the LaMarche Subdivision will cease to be used as an access and be maintained as a utility easement. The applicant is proposing to enclose the tank site with a 12 -foot security fence (10 foot chain link fence with barb wire on top). The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of 6 feet for fences. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for increased fence height. The applicant is also requesting a variance for the overall height of the tank. The ordinance allows a 2 December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6427 maximum height in the R-2 district of 35 feet. The proposed tank is to have a maximum height of 55 feet. The applicant has stated that a 100 foot buffer will be maintained between the perimeter of the tank site and any future residential development. The proposed water storage tank should have no adverse effect on the general area. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Public Works Comments 2. Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance for the water storage tank. 3. Staff recommends approval of the requested height variance for the security fence. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Tim Daters and Joe O'Hara (L. representing the application. description of the proposal. (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) R. Water Works) were present, Staff gave a brief Mr. Daters stated that as many of the mature trees in this area as possible will be saved. Staff noted the required height variance for the water tank. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 December A, 1997 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: G-40-14 Northwest Territory - Water Main Extension LOCATION: East side of Chenal Parkway at Highway 10; beginning at the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Highway 10 running approximately 500 linear feet to the north along the east side of Chenal Parkway. OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water Works PROPOSAL: In accordance with Act 186 of 1957, the Little Rock Water Works is requesting approval of a 16 -inch water main extension along the east side of Chenal Parkway, north of Highway 10. 1. Public Works: Obtain barricade permit for work within right-of-way. 2. Utilities: No comments received. 3. Staff Analysis: In accordance with Act 186 of 1957, the Little Rock Water Works is requesting approval of a 16 -inch water main extension along the east side of Chenal Parkway, north of Highway 10. Any water main extension larger than twelve (12) inches requires review and approval from the Little Rock Planning Commission. This installation will initially serve the proposed Chenal Mini -Storage to be constructed on Lot 1, Northwest Territory Subdivision (24300 Chenal Parkway). The main being installed will allow for a future loop which will enhance the overall flows in this general area. The developer plans to pay for the 16 -inch water main installation. An 8 -inch sewer main extension is planned in conjunction with this water main extension. Since this December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-40-14 property is located outside the Little Rock city limits, both the water main and sewer main extensions will require approval by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the Public Works Comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Tim Daters and Joe O'Hara (L. R. Water Works) were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the water main extension. There being no outstanding issues for discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. 2 for made. December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: G-40-15 NAME• LOCATION: Chenal - Water Main Extension North from the proposed Deltic Water Tank (Z-6427) OWNER/APPLICANT: Deltic Timber Corp./ White-Daters by Tim Daters PROPOSAL: In accordance with Act 186 of 1957, water main extensions are requested in conjunction with the proposed water storage tank (Z-6427). A 20 -inch water main extension is requested which will run approximately 300 linear feet north from the proposed water tank. A 16 -inch water main extension is requested which will run approximately 1,800 linear feet south from the existing 16 -inch water main which exists along the east side of Chenal Parkway just south of Highway 10. 1. Public works: 1. Location shall permit future vertical alignment for arterial and Boulevard construction on Chenal Parkway. 2. Obtain barricade permit for work within right-of- way. 2. Utilities: No comments received. 3. Staff Analysis: In accordance with Act 186 of 1957, water main extensions are requested in conjunction with the proposed water storage tank (Z-6427). Any water main extension larger than twelve (12) inches requires review and approval from the Little Rock Planning Commission. December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-40-15 A 20 -inch water main extension is requested which will run approximately 300 linear feet north from the proposed water storage tank. A 16 -inch water main extension is requested which will run approximately 1,800 linear feet south from the existing 16 -inch water main which exists along the east side of Chenal Parkway just south of Highway 10. Other water main extensions in this area will be 12 -inch. The water main extensions, along with the water storage tank, will enhance water service to this general area. Construction of these water main extensions will be a joint venture between Deltic Timber Corporation and the Little Rock Water Works. The Aberdeen Court Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the Public Works Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 20, 1997) Tim Daters and Joe O'Hara (L. R. Water Works) were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed water main extension. There being no outstanding issues for discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 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 inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval as recommended by staff. A motion to that effect was The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes and 0 nays. K for made. December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.• 27 NAME: Land Use Plan Amendment - Ellis Mountain LOCATION: Between Gamble and Atkins Roads REQUEST: Single Family to Suburban Office SOURCE: Owner - Robert Rice STAFF REPORT: The site is in the Ellis Mountain District. The Plan shows Single Family for the site. There have been several plan changes in this area within the last five years. On the other side of the Timber Ridge and Point west Subdivisions, the area was changed from Multifamily to Commercial and Mixed Office Commercial. Then in two separate actions, the area north of the same subdivisions was changed from Office to Commercial and Park/Open Space. Gamble Road is classified as a collector, however all the other surrounding roads are local streets. The nearest arterials are Kanis Road and Markham Street to the south and north respectively. The requested area is surrounded by Single Family use (planned and zoned). There are vacant and undeveloped areas to the north and south shown on the Plan for Office or Transition use. If the site were developed for an office use, vehicles would have to travel in front of single family homes to access the site. With the site in the middle of a single family area and alternative sites available, staff cannot support a change to Suburban Office at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) Walter Malone, Planning Manager reviewed the area. Mr. Malone identified the site and surrounding land use pattern. After review, staff does not believe it is appropriate to change an area surrounded by Single Family to Office use. Randy Frazier, attorney for applicant (Dr. Rice), indicated everyone was here tonight to discuss a land use change as required by the Commission. The owner has a specific planned December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) office development for this site. The site is currently platted as 32 single family lots. If the area were developed as such, the impacts would be as great or greater. Mr. Frazier reviewed the site plan and building elevations. He indicated that the owner will occupy one of the structures with his professional office. He stated they would come back with the specifics of the planned application. Shirley MCFarlin, owner of land immediately to the south, stated that she is building her home there. All the neighborhood is against the intrusion of office into this established neighborhood. It is not appropriate to have an office complex surrounded by single family homes. Some of the residents will be close to the proposed office buildings. With no sewer, any development will be difficult. For this proposal a pump station will be used (discussion about sewer system and topography - drainage). This is a neighborhood and we would like to keep it as it is. Terry Haley, 515 Trumpler, just north of the site. Haley agreed with the previous speaker. He stated that when he moved in he didn't think office buildings would be built within 100 feet of his home. He said the area is residential and asked that the Commission deny the amendment. Commissioner Hawn moved to approve the application as filed (second Adcock). By a vote of 1 for 9 against, the amendment was denied. 2 December 18, 1997 ITEM NO.: 28 SUBJECT: Public hearing on WCF, Wireless Communication Facilities REQUEST: That the Planning Commission hear comments and discuss the text of the ordinance and pass on recommendation to the City Board of Directors. STAFF REPORT: The staff of the City Attorney's Office with assistance from Planning Staff has drafted an ordinance we feel addresses the issues we have confronted recently. Copies of this draft have been mailed on two occasions to our ordinance review list of 45 persons plus the industry people we identified. We expect comments from a number of sources in as much as we have received numerous responses to the mailout. Some of the recommended changes have been inserted within the text and this will be evident as you read it. Stephen Giles of the City Attorney's and Planning Staff will be available to answer questions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 18, 1997) There were several representatives of the wireless communications industry present at the public hearing. Steve Giles, City Attorney, explained various aspects of the proposed ordinance to the Commission. The various industry representatives expressed their concerns with the proposed ordinance. Those concerns included tower height (maximum permitted), setback from residential property and the employment of an engineer by the City on appealed applications. The Commission, after a lengthy discussion, asked Mr. Giles to revise the ordinance draft (based on the Commission's discussion) and present it at the next available meeting for approval. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 8, 1998 agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. L -v A MENEM SHUHN 3BEEN sumul IUBEB among snoop MEN Ru _ o V ? V J m cDo0 >7 -1w w U P J �- W Z W: H Q Z w ¢ �O = ¢ o» U m W 0 2� LL Q d Z J 2 sun©ounuum©l 0 QQ J M LL = Z N H a J 0 w m _ ? a m V cnZwZ- Y.d j I= } W Z §� U Q J WMA:Wi=W0zz z z=� M W OR LaL Q d Z J= Ll .tv, w z r w 0 o U W � � N O _O 55 � "I N O U d Z a ,r N Z � m A MENEM SHUHN 3BEEN sumul IUBEB among snoop MEN Ru _ o V ? V J m cDo0 >7 -1w w U P J �- W Z W: H Q Z w ¢ �O = ¢ o» U m W 0 2� LL Q d Z J 2 sun©ounuum©l 0 QQ J M LL = Z N H a J 0 w m _ ? a m V cnZwZ- Y.d j I= } W Z §� U Q J WMA:Wi=W0zz z z=� M W OR LaL Q d Z J= Ll .tv, w z r w December 18, 1997 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Date Chairman