Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_07 18 1996subI. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JULY 18, 1996 3:30 P.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being seven in number. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes of the June 6, 1996 Planning Commission meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Pam Adcock Sissi Brandon Hugh Earnest Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Ronald Woods Mizan Rahman Doyle Daniel, Jr. Open Position (Ramsay Balls resignation) Stephen Giles Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA JULY 18, 1996 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Riverdale Mini -Storage -- Site Plan Review (S-1041-A) B. Candlewood Apartments -- Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-548-I) C. Bunnells Short -Form PCD, Revocation (Z-4080-A) D. Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, C.U.P. (Z-6114) E. SW Bell Services (NW corner of Pierce at "W" Street) -- C.U.P. (Z-3327-A) F. Riverfront Dr. Right -of -Way Abandonment (at Jessie Road) (G-23-245-A) G. Mason Street/Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-246) II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. E.R.C. Addition -- Preliminary Plat Lot 1 (5-283-H) 2. Cecelia Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1103) Lot 1 and Tract "A" 3. Rock Ridge Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1104) 4. Touchstone Subdivision -- Combined Preliminary and Final (S-1102) 5. Arkansas Systems Revised -- Preliminary Plat (S-1073-B 5A. Robbins Addition Preliminary Plat Lots 1 and 2 (5-1107) III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 6. Humane Society Long -Form PCD (Z-6165) 7. Detection Systems Revised POD (Z-5838-A) 8. U.S. Postal Service PD-C (Z-6051-A) 1 Agenda, Page 2 IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 9. Mabelvale Business Park -- Site Plan (Z-3459-C) V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 10. Trammell Crow -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-3699-B) 11. ERC Foundation -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-4175-F) 12. Arkla Gas Company -- Amended Conditional Use Permit (Z-4478-D) 13. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5365-C) 14. Grace Lutheran Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5473-A) 15. Alltel -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5737-A) 16. Godwin -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6162) 17. Rex Playground Equipment -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6163) VI. REZONING• 18. Z-6161 -- 3205 Asher Avenue -- from R-3 to C-1 VII. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 19. Z-6164 -- 8420 Kanis Road -- Special Use Permit VIII. OTHER MATTERS: 20. Land Use Plan -- Definition -- Suburban Office 21. Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment (Block 1, Hillcrest Addition) (G-23-250) 22. Coulson Oil PCD -- (Z-4411-B) Reconsideration of a commission condition of approval 2 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1041-A NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- REVISED SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN LOCATION: 1024 Jessie Road DEVELOPER• John Haley Riverdale Mini -Storage 875 Union Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER• BCC GBN (Blass Firm) 303 West Capitol Avenue Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 2.91 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 or 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3 PROPOSED USES: Office Space PLANNING DISTRICT: Heights (4) CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None at submittal - to be determined by the right-of-way abandonment. BACKGROUND• This parcel of land is partially composed of excess street right- of-way and a remnant of the mini -storage development site. The applicant has previously attempted to gain use of the excess right-of-way for development purposes, he is again on this agenda with a petition to abandon if all requirements of the filing can be met. The developer has not indicated at this time if there will be a replat to make this a separate lot. If that is done, it may relieve some problems with design. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: To construct two stories of office space above a parking structure that will provide up to 38 spaces on one level. The initial application indicates a separate drive access from Jessie Road than that used by mini -storage. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The expansion of the project area of the mini -storage to add office space. This is being accomplished by submittal of a revised Subdivision Site Plan. The end product to be four buildings on a lot or possibly a two lot plat. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1041-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is a rough parcel of land with drainage and flood plain problems and street problems with a private road. The abutting uses are a mix of Office, Commercial and Warehouse. zoning is mixed in the this area ranging from Office to the north and east to Commercial and Industrial along the railroad right-of-way. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Please note address assigned by GIS (1024 Jessie Road). The design of the building will be required to comply with FEMA regulations. The parking is in the flood plain and does not have to be constructed above the Base Flood Elevation. However, the stair towers and elevator shaft will need to be at or above BFE of 256.3, or be flood proofed to this elevation. A grading plan with a Special Flood Hazard Permit is required prior to any construction. See G-23-245-A comments (right-of-way abandonment). Respond to requirements concerning the drainageway and the reconstruction of Jessie Road to Commercial Street Standards. Also, a sidewalk on Riverfront Drive shall be constructed as a part of this project. The proposed drive is too close to existing drive recently constructed and should be a minimum of 100 feet from the intersection of Riverfront Drive (a minor arterial) per City Ordinance. Recommend combining drives and using a common access point. Utilities: Sewer/exist 10" and 27" line available, contact Wastewater. Water/if on a separate lot a main extension is required. Fire Department needs to evaluate line and hydrant need and location. Southwestern Bell Telephone/approved as submitted. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: • The site plan should be redrawn to include all existing buildings. • Will there be a plat with this on a separate lot? 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A • Delete parking space nine, won't work. • Indicate signage, building and pole mounted. • Turn radii on drives should be shown. • Detail on plan areas for grass or landscaping. • Detail on canopy as to height-clearance-signage, setback from new right-of-way line. (Required at 30 feet on Riverfront Drive.) • Setback from Jessie Road is 50 feet. • Fully dimension all physical improvements. The full on -site buffer width required along Riverfront Drive is 40 feet. The minimum requirement when transferring buffer area to another part of the site is 27 feet. The width of the proposed buffer cannot be determined until the right-of-way issue has been worked out. At this time, the amount of right-of-way to be added to this site from the abandonments is unknown. E. ANALYSIS• This application is premature given the several significant issues developed by staff. The right-of-way line and future property line require resolution prior to determining buffers, landscaping, setback, parking design, etc. The use and general concept is good and has possibilities after resolution of issues. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Deferral of the request until such time as the street abandonment issue is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) The staff presented its comments on the submittal, stating that there were too many issues unresolved and the drawing requires more information. The staff felt that it could not deal with the proposed building without knowing how much land is involved. Until such time as the City decides how much land will be turned back to this owner, the lot line on Riverfront Drive is unknown. A lengthy discussion was held on the subject of bringing all data and graphics up to date, by the Thursday, May 23 deadline. Someone raised a question about the railroad ownership and their participation. It was staff position that the railroad must sign as a participant. A general discussion then involved the right- of-way and why the abandonment issue is before the Commission. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1041-A Staff question about a need for a plat produced a response from the applicant that a plat would not be done, this will be one lot. Wood, of the Staff, noted for the record that a variance will be required if this is all considered one lot, the depth of the lot east/west requires a 40 foot buffer along Riverfront Drive. The present plan cannot handle that. A brief discussion involved sidewalk and the proposed jogging trail that Parks Department is developing. No resolution was gained at the approach to in -lieu or building it. The applicant then accepted the Committee request that the requirements noted be dealt with by next Thursday, May 23, 1996. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for consideration. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 28, 1996) This applicant responded to the many unresolved issues by requesting in writing a deferral of the application to July 18th and the Subdivision Committee on June 27th. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) As requested by the applicant in writing, a deferral of this item was determined to be in order. The Commission placed this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral to July 18, 1996. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee meeting in as much as the applicant had not made contact with staff concerning resolution of the street abandonment or the site plan review. The Staff and Committee would suggest that the item be carried forward at least one additional review period which would place the item before the Commission on August 29, 1996. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1041-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff offered the applicant's request for deferral to the Planning Commission on August 29, 1996. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 5 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: 5-548-I NAME: CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension, approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd. and the Kroger Center. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe White MCCASLIN DEVELOPMENT WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5950 Berkshire Ln. 401 S. Victory St. Suite 800 LB 37 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dallas, TX 75225 374-1666 (214) 696-8422 AREA: 39.32 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 3,500 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: River Mountain (1) CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three- story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family building is to contain approximately 10,000 square feet per floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000 square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site from its "dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west boundary of the site. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded. The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the "dead-end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-I is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40 feet of rise. The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a pending applicant to be heard on May 9, 1996, for the rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise, all surrounding properties are zoned R-2 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan, with the location, width, intersections, curve radii, and grades conforming to City ordinances. The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width, minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be 27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the plans along these drives. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any land alteration. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement will be required around the full perimeter of the site. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be required to obtain water service to this project. On -Site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project. The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to the fire hydrants. E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO • S-548-I D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31.13 requires "large-scale developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings (on a site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section Because of the multiple buildings being constructed, the Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed site plan. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site plan review submittal indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family development and land use buffers are required. The topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this, but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with by the applicant and the Commission. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of all existing and proposed utility and street easements and all existing public improvements within the site be shown. The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street (shown as a "Future Public Street") extends westward across the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made, and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the street. Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and parking areas is critical. Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the site, showing the exact property lines, and including a statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not meet the requirements as such. The availability of public utilities has not been addressed. On -site fire hydrants have not been located and provided for. The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not been identified. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I E. Sec. 36-502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes, that 1% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit. The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd. The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to provide for this extension, nor to build the street to collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the Planning and Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a change should be made. Otherwise, conformance with the Master Street Plan is mandated. The Plans Review Specialist comments: The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient area for landscaping. to comply with both the Ordinances. ANALYSIS: The development will be required Land Use Buffer and Landscaping The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation- of the roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super - elevation" means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by Public Works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public Works standards. Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be initiated by the applicant. The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of applicant complying with the street and drive standards. the site plan, subject to the Public Works requirements for 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reported on the Public Works comments, and discussed in detail the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west, as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information, indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May 9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on the property which will be heard on that date. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) This item was not discussed in as much as there are continuing discussions between the developer and staff on street issues. The item requires deferral to the July 18, 1996 Subdivision meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) This item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Commission as suggested by the Subdivision Committee in order to permit additional time for the developer and staff to complete discussion of the street issues and the developer to determine acquisition of the property. The Consent Agenda for deferral until July 18, 1996 was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-I SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) This item was not discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting due to the applicant's failure to provide additional information as to resolution of the site plan access and location of the primary road to the site. The Staff and Committee would suggest that this item be continued one additional deferral or until August 29, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff offered comment to the effect that this applicant and the staff require additional time to determine the design of certain street access to serve the proposed development. Staff suggested this matter will be resolved prior to the next Subdivision Committee meeting on August 8 or staff will ask that it be withdrawn from further consideration. Staff suggested that it be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to defer the item to August 29, 1996. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 6 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-4080-A NAME: BUNNELL'S -- SHORT -FORM PCD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and North St., at 1517 Cantrell Rd. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: ORIGINAL APPLICANT: FRANK WHITBECK SIGNATURE LIFE INSURANCE CO. JOE BUNNELL & FRANK WHITBECK P. O. Box 3437 Savers Federal & Loan Building Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA• 0.43 ACRES CURRENT ZONING: PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT• 9 BACKGROUND• NUMBER OF LOTS• 2 Downtown (5) FT. NEW STREET• ORIGINAL ZONING: 0-3 By letter dated October 4, 1983, Frank Whitbeck, owner of the referenced property, asked for approval of a PCD. His letter outlined the proposal: the eastern -most lot, Lot 5, with an existing home on it, was proposed to be used as an antique shop, but approval of other C-1 uses was also requested; and, the western -most lot, Lot 6, which had an existing "off -premise - outdoor advertising sign on it and a parking lot, was proposed to retain the sign, plus have improvements made to the parking lot to serve the business use on the adjoining lot. The applicant proposed to provide the required turn -around for the existing parking lot, and to border the paved area with railroad ties. He indicated that the entire area would be landscaped. Subsequent- ly, on December 6, 1983, the requested PCD was approved by the Board of Directors, in Ordinance No. 14,557. The existing 0-3 zoning was changed to PCD. STAFF UPDATE: The present condition of the site is: the residential structure on Lot 5 is gone, all that remains being the concrete slab (there is no "landscaping" anywhere on this lot); and, on Lot 6, the paved parking lot remains (there is grass on the lot, plus some red tip photianias under and in line with the sign) but the proposed modifications to it have not been made (i.e., it is not bordered with railroad ties and the turn -around was not constructed). The concrete building which was located on Lot 6 at the time of the approval is gone. The outdoor advertising July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4080-A sign, which was on the site when the PCD was approved, is still there. No final plan was submitted and there have been no "improvements" to the site (except for the razing the buildings). There have been no building permits issued, and the proposed use was, evidently, never put in place. Ordinance No. 14,557 states: "...this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force upon... approval of the (final) plan by the Planning Commission." Section 36-454(d) of the Code of Ordinances states: "The applicant shall have three (3) years from the date of the preliminary plan approval to submit the final...plan." Section 36-458(a) states: "The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD ... approval be revoked ... if no building permit has been issued within two (2) years from the recording date of the final plan...." No "final plan- was approved, either by staff or by the Planning Commission, and development of the PRD has never been undertaken. The existing residential structure, which was to be used for an antique shop is no longer on the site. Since the "off -premise" outdoor advertising sign was in place prior to the PCD zoning (it was a non -conforming use at that time), it is unaffected by the revocation of the PCD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PCD be revoked, and that the 0-3 zoning of the site, which was in place prior to the rezoning to PCD, be reinstated. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that a letter had been owner, indicating that he had had an for several months, and that he asked PCD be deferred until the June 6, 199 recommended the requested deferral be was included in the Consent Agenda fo was approved with the vote of 10 ayes abstentions. (APRIL 25, 1996) received from the property out-of-town trip scheduled that the revocation of his 6 Commission meeting. Staff approved and the deferral r Deferral. The deferral , 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) The Chairman asked that the Staff present this item for consideration on the regular agenda. Staff determined that the applicant, Mr. Frank Whitbeck, was not in attendance. The Fa July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-4080-A Commission determined to place the item at the end of the agenda and awaited Mr. Whitbeck's attendance. At a later point in the agenda, the Chairman asked that this item be again placed on the regular agenda for discussion. Again, staff noticed that there was no one present representing the application. A brief discussion between staff and the Commission determined that this item be deferred again until the next regular scheduled meeting, which is July 18, 1996 and that the applicant, Mr. Whitbeck, be instructed to be in attendance or the Commission would act upon the matter of revocation and forward the item to the Board of Directors without further comment. A motion was made to this effect. The motion was passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) There was no discussion of this item at the Subdivision Committee meeting. However, a follow-up discussion of this subject with the City's Attorney Office with Stephen Giles indicated that the applicants' attorney, Mr. Christopher Barrier, has indicated a recommended solution. This solution is supported by the City Attorney and Staff at this point. The action that will be recommended at the Planning Commission would be that the portion of the current PCD that is occupied by the billboard and landscaped area be continued and maintained as a valid PCD lot. The balance of the property which is vacant lying to the east would be returned to its original 0-3 General Office classification. This action would resolve the problem as it currently exist, which is the owner has no use of the vacant lot in as much as it is tied to a PCD with buildings that no longer occupy the property. His primary concern was the temporary continuance of the billboard until such time as he has a development for the total site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman recognized Staff and asked that they offer their recommendation and an update on the Bunnell's Short -Form PCD. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the application and instructed the Commission that the applicant and staff had reached an understanding as for a solution of the revocation ordinance so as to serve the best interest of the property owner in retaining one of the uses existing on the property. Wood pointed out that the original PCD provided for a billboard on the westernmost lot at the street corner. Wood stated that in discussion with Mr. Christopher Barrier, attorney July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4080-A for the owner, this billboard site being one lot should be retained as a PCD and the remaining property be returned to an 0-3 classification through the process of revocation. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Barrier. Mr. Barrier indicated the application as presented by Staff was as he and his client understood the proposal at this time. He indicated that they agree the item should go to the Board for the appropriate ordinance. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that it would be appropriate to act on this case as recommended by the Staff and send the item to the City Board for final action. A motion was made to recommend to the City Board that the 0-3 restoration on the easternmost portion of the property be approved and the billboard site being the western lot be retained as a PD-C. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-6114 NAME: Bethel Primitive Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 10912 Chicot Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Bethel Primitive Baptist Church by Charles Holladay and Connie Watson PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and parking lot on this existing 4 acre church site, which is zoned R-2. The applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in the paving requirements for the driveway and parking lot. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) year deferral in the completion of half principal arterial street improvements to Chicot Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The existing church site is located on the west side of Chicot Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of Mabelvale Cut -Off. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located in an area primarily zoned R-2 and comprised mainly of single family residential uses. The properties to the north and west of this site contain single family residences with one commercial building immediately north on Depriest Road. Chicot Elementary School is located immediately south of this site. There is some vacant land east of this site (across Chicot Road), with single family residences further east. The proposed expansion of the church building should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The church is nonconforming in its relationship to parking, given the fact that the church was built over July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 25 years ago and has no off-street paved parking spaces. There is a small gravel parking lot on the south side of the church building. The proposed increase in the churches seating capacity from 90 to 160 will require 18 new paved parking spaces. There is ample space within the proposed new parking area to satisfy this requirement. The applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in paving the parking lot and the driveway. There is a single access point from Chicot Road. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border are required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic and gravel. Screening of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north and west is required. This screening may be in the form of a six foot high opaque wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. Placement of the screening may need adjustment in order to not obstruct the floodway. This site must comply with minimum Landscape Ordinance requirements. 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide contour information. Provide base flood information. Provide a sketch grading and drainage plan. A development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to any construction. Contact ADPC&E and the USACE-LRD prior to start of work. A portion of this property lies in the regulatory floodway. Hold application until information furnished as requested. Stormwater Detention ordinance will apply. Chicot Road is a Principal Arterial, dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct half of the 5 lane pavement with sidewalk including relocation of City owned utilities. Paved drives are required by ordinance. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Fire Department: Driveway must support weight of fire apparatus. Proper fire hydrant spacing is required. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a new church sanctuary and parking lot on -this existing 4 acre church site at 10912 Chicot Road, which is zoned R-2. The applicant is also requesting a 24-month deferral in the paving requirements for the driveway and parking lot. The site currently contains a small church building with a seating capacity of approximately ninety (90) people. The church has existed on this site for over twenty-five years. The church building sits approximately 500 feet back from Chicot Road and has a small gravel parking lot on its south side. There is also a small out -building on the site which serves the church as a kitchen and for social events. When construction is complete, this out -building will be torn down and removed. The applicant proposes to construct a new 38 foot by 74 foot church sanctuary, with a seating capacity of one hundred and sixty (160). The new sanctuary will be built on the east side of, and attached to, the existing building. The existing building will become the kitchen and dining area for the new church building. The proposed increase in the churches seating capacity (from 90 to 160) will require 18 new paved parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a new parking lot on the north side of the new sanctuary. The new parking lot will accommodate approximately 32 vehicles. The existing gravel parking lot on the south side of the building will accommodate approximately 14 vehicles. The applicant is requesting a 24-month deferral in paving the new parking lot and the driveway from Chicot Road. As noted in paragraph 5., at least a portion of this property lies in the regulatory floodway. The applicant must furnish information regarding the location of the floodway on this property. This could have a major effect on the design of this site plan. This issue must be resolved prior to Planning Commission approval. The applicant is also requesting a five (5) year deferral in completion of half principal arterial street improvements to Chicot Road. Public Works Staff has indicated that they can support this deferral request. The applicant has also agreed to dedicate the 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 appropriate right-of-way (55 feet from centerline) for Chicot Road. Based on the zoning in this general area and the surrounding uses, the proposed expansion of the existing church facilities should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Fire Department Comments 4. Staff recommends approval of the 24-month deferral of paving requirements for the new parking lot and driveway. 5. Staff recommends approval of the five (5) year deferral for half street improvements to Chicot Road. UBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Connie Watson was present, representing the application. A brief description of the proposal and the general location was given to the Committee. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the Committee, primarily the fact that part of this property lies in the regulatory floodway and information on this must be obtained by the applicant before approval can be given. He stated that the applicant needed to obtain a survey of the property which shows the location of the floodway. He also noted the requirement to dedicate right-of-way (55 feet form centerline of Chicot Road) and to construct half street improvements to Chicot Road. Mrs. Watson stated that she would obtain a survey of the property (showing the floodway) as soon as possible and revise the site plan accordingly. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6114 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the June 6, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the June 6, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The applicant is working toward resolving the floodway issues associated with this property. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn, without prejudice. The applicant will continue to resolve the floodway issues associated with this property and will refile the application as soon as possible. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 5 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-3327-A NAME: Southwestern Bell Services (NW corner of N. Pierce and "W" Streets) - Conditional Use Permit Northwest corner of N. Pierce Street and "W" Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water Works/ Southwestern Bell Services by Brian Powers PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a cellular communications facility on this R-2 zoned property. The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine small antennae to the existing water tank. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is within the existing Little Rock Water Works' water tank site which is located at the northwest corner of N. Pierce and "W" Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The existing Little Rock Municipal Water Works tank site is adjacent to single family residential structures to the north and west. There are also single family residential structures to the south across "W" Street and to the east across N. Pierce Street. The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: There are no access drives on the property. On -street parking is available for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site. No additional parking is required. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3327-A 4. Screening and Buffers: Evergreen screening shrubs 30 inches in height at planting with the ability to grow to at least six feet and spaced every three feet should be planted around the perimeter of the proposed structure to help soften its exterior where visible from the adjacent streets and residential property. 5. City Engineer Comments: Each of the boundary streets has 40 feet of dedicated right-of-way. The residential street standard for this area is 50 feet per the Master Street Plan with a 20 foot radial dedication at the intersection. Dedicate the additional right-of-way. 6. Utility Comments: No comments received. 7. ,Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a cellular communications facility on this R-2 zoned Little Rock Water Works water tank site which is located at the northwest corner of N. Pierce and "W" Streets. The site contains an existing 122 foot tall water tank. The proposal includes placement of an 8 foot by 16 foot prefabricated equipment building and attachment of nine small antennae to the existing water tank. The equipment building will be located on the west side of the water tank approximately 37 feet from the west property line. The equipment building will also be located approximately 100 feet from N. Pierce Street and 50+ feet from "W" Street. The nine antennae will be attached at the painter's ring level of the existing water tank and will not increase the height of the tank. Typically, Southwestern Bell Service's equipment buildings are of masonry construction with a washed aggregate exterior and a light brown color. The applicant has offered several different options regarding the exterior finish and color. One of these options could prove more compatible with the exterior finishes of the existing single family structures in this area. The proposed equipment building should not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3327-A 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments and the City Engineers Comments. Staff also recommends that the exterior of the proposed equipment building be of a frame construction with wood (or simulated wood) siding and painted a neutral color, as presented to staff as an option by the applicant. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) Brian Powers was present, representing the application. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposal. Brian Powers addressed the Committee, stating that he had no problems with the screening and buffers comments and would be willing to install additional landscaping along the street sides if necessary. Commissioner Putnam asked about the color and style of the building. Brian Powers stated that the building was of a masonry construction with a washed aggregate exterior and tan in color. He offered photographs to the Committee and stated that different exteriors and colors could be used if necessary. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Staff presented the item, submitted a letter requesting until the Subdivision Agenda applicant is working with the regarding this proposal. (JUNE 6, 1996) stating that the applicant has that the item be deferred of July 18, 1996. The neighborhood on issues The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3327-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be withdrawn, without prejudice. The applicant has been unable to work out details of the proposal with the neighborhood. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for withdrawal. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: G-23-245-A me: Location: Owner/Applicant: Request: Riverfront Drive Right - of -Way Abandonment Located at Riverfront Drive (at Jessie Road), north of and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. John Haley and Chris Robertson/Fred Chilcote To abandon the excess right-of-way for Riverfront Drive, north and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. The applicant has not been able to obtain all necessary documents needed for staff to conduct a proper review of this item. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a deferral of this item until the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission Subdivision Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of July 18, 1996. The applicant is working toward obtaining all necessary paperwork to complete the application process. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the July 18, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. The applicant is continuing to work toward obtaining all necessary documents needed for staff to review the item. The applicant has submitted at letter requesting that the item be deferred until the August 29, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. March 14, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of August 29, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the August 29, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. E July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: G-23-246 Name: Location• Owner/Applicant: Request• STAFF REVIEW: 1. 2. Mason Street and Hardin Road Right -of -Way Abandonment 11,000 Block of Kanis Road - North Side Robert M. Brown, Applicant To abandon that portion of Mason Street and Hardin Road located at Kanis Road, running North 504± feet and 417± feet respectively, for use as utility easement areas. Mason Street will be maintained as a private drive for access to adjacent properties to the east. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav The Public Works response depends on the adjacent property owners responses. Therefore, Public Works response is deferred until further information is provided. There do exist issues involving access to existing building and prescriptive rights by the users of these right-of-ways. Legal access has to be provided to each separate parcel. As the proposal stands, access to the rear parcels within this ownership (Tract 51 and 52) would require access. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets The Director of Public Works agreed to a 6 months deferral of the dedication of right-of-way for these two streets at the time of rezoning. This was to allow the applicant time to investigate the possibility of closing these right-of-ways. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246 Required right-of-way for Kanis Road was dedicated at the time of rezoning. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Mason Street is a narrow drive, which is used to access two residences and a salvage yard business to the east. Hardin Road is vacant and undeveloped. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the areas of this abandonment will be used as utility easement areas. Mason Street will be maintained as a private drive for access to the eastern properties. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Mason Street: Surrounding uses include two single family residential structures and a salvage yard to the east, which gain access from Mason Street. There are three single family residences to the west, all of which are accessed from Kanis Road. Hardin Road: Surrounding uses include the same three single family residential structures to the east and single-family residential uses to the west, all of which gain access from Kanis Road. Abandoning these rights -of -way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neiahborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities Fire Department - Mason Street needs to remain open to provide access to properties on the east side. AP&L - Retain the rights -of -way for easements (egress and ingress). Southwestern Bell - retain the rights -of -way for utility easements. ARKLA - No objection Little Rock Water Works - No objection Little Rock Wastewater - Retain the rights -of -way for utility easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246 Mason Street: Once abandoned, the area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the owners of Tracts 50, 51, 62 and 63 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock. Hardin Street: Once abandoned, the area of the proposed abandonment will be divided equally between the owners of Tracts 52, 53, 60 and 61 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning these rights -of -way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 1. Mason Street being maintained as a private drive for access to adjacent properties to the east. 2. The areas of this abandonment being retained as utility easements. 3. Tracts 51, 52, 61 and 62 of the West Highland Addition to the City of Little Rock being treated as a single piece of property for the purpose of gaining access from Kanis Road. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, explained to the Committee that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission agenda and that this item would be submitted to the Subdivision Committee for comments on April 4, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the April 25, 1996 Planning Commission Agenda. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-246 The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the April 25, 1996 Commission meeting. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed on a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (APRIL 4, 1996) The applicant was not present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, gave a brief description of the proposed right-of-way abandonments. After a brief discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has requested deferral of this item to the July 18, 1996 Planning Commission agenda. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the July 18, 1996 commission meeting. The motion was passed on a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the item be deferred until the Subdivision Agenda of August 29, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the August 29, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. A waiver of the Planning Commission Bylaws was also approved by the same vote, as this was the applicant's third request for deferral. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-283-H NAME: E.R.C. Addition Lot 1 - PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: South terminus of Aldersgate Road E.R.C. Foundation 2701 Aldersgate Road Little Rock, AR 72205 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 8.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1020 ZONING: MF-12 PROPOSED USES: Nursing Home PLANNING DISTRICT: #11 - I-430 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of minimum horizontal radius from 450 feet to 380 feet. BACKGROUND• This one lot plat is a part of a larger development area that has been continually building facilities targeted to the retired and elderly. The surrounding land use is a mixture of institutional, mixed density housing, open space, a hospice and several living environments designed for handicapped/disabled persons. It appears that history has established this area as one serving persons with needs beyond conventional living environments. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To build a nursing home in a single level building with several phases. The plan is to construct all of Aldersgate Road from current pavement end as a collector (36 foot) road. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land area on all sides is somewhat rolling terrain. The lot at issue is isolated from built up areas and has had little or no clearing. The road way of Aldersgate Road is a one-half street with curb on the east side only. That condition derives from the last E.R.C. project on the east side of Aldersgate Road. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-283-H Public Transportation This area is provided bus service by CATA on Route 3, B. M. Center. It serves Aldersgate Camp and Good Shepherd Center with partial schedule. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Provide for a superelevated collector since street centerline is less than 450 foot horizontal radius. Future development area needs to take access from the planned drive or parking. The frontage would not permit two drives. Consult with the Traffic Engineer prior to Planning Commission concerning the entry drive configuration and signage. The shown future drive to turn -around should be 24 feet in minimum width. Construct collector to the limits of the property with a sidewalk on both sides. Alignment will be as approved through the preliminary plat process. Stormwater detention, ADPC&E permit, grading permit, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. Platting of Master Street Plan right-of-way is required prior to construction permit. Street lights are required for this street and subdivision, coordinate their construction with street construction. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements/capacity contribution required. Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Water: A front foot charge of $15 along 12- main E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-283-H AP&L: No response Fire Department: OK, but on -site fire protection needs review, hydrant, etc. County Planning: No comment, inside city Planning Division: No comment, no land use issues F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings will be required to screen the business activity of this site from the residential properties to the east and west. Existing on site natural dense vegetation can count toward fulfilling this requirement. Planning Staff • Need assurance on Aldersgate Road construction. • Include road in plat boundary and indicate 36 foot pavement. • Show ownership certificate on plat. • Show water and sewer service location. • Resolve possible plat name conflict. • File Bill of Assurance. G. ANALYSIS• The plat as filed has a few items to be resolved but is generally in good form. All of the issues of importance have been thoroughly discussed and resolved. The plat, the use as a conditional use permit and the zoning application cover all points. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the plat subject to the several plat notations required by ordinance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was present as was the engineer on the plat. The issue of the design of the Aldersgate Street curve was the only point discussed at length. David Scherer of Public Works 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-283-H indicated the curve design could be handled and that it would work. Some discussion involved the responsibility for all street improvements. It was understood that the balance of the 36 foot will be accomplished with this lot. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff offered a positive recommendation to the Commission as the application is in good order. Staff feels it is appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The several plat issues which have been identified will be added to the drawing prior to the plan being submitted to the Board of Directors for variances of street design. A brief discussion of the proposal resulted in a motion to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 2 FILE NO.: 5-1103 NAME: CECELIA ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOT 1 AND TRACT A LOCATION: 7216 Green Road (Off Geyer Springs Road) DEVELOPER: LAND SURVEYOR: Cecelia Cochran 011en Dee Wilson 7216 Green Road 2523 willow Street Mabelvale, AR 72103 No. Little Rock, AR 72114 AREA: 2.55 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single -Family PLANNING DISTRICT: #14, Geyer Springs CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Boundary Street Improvements 2) One lot phasing, retain balance of tract on preliminary BACKGROUND: This applicant approached Little Rock Water Works for a meter and Little Rock Water. The cost per front foot was assessed on her total frontage which made it prohibitive. She desires to plat out one residential size lot for which the assessment will be affordable. The balance of her ownership will be charged the assessment when developed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The retain the current single family home on Lot 1 and obtain Little Rock Water. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A typical rural large lot circumstance on well and septic tank. Many homes in area of the county have bad water or at least not useable for all purposes and many times very low in summer dry season. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1103 The neighborhood is generally large lot single family, meaning three or more acres per site. The land is rolling with no severe grades. Public Transportation None within approximately two miles. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Green Road is a collector street dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 1992 traffic count is 1840 vehicles per day. Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment Water: No city service at this time Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK AP&L : No comment Fire Department: Outside city - no comment County Planning: Need to determine Master Street Plan status, county or city. Planning Division: No comment Landscape: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: • A Bill of Assurance is required. • Show abutting owners on plat, plus any recorded plats. • Monumentation per Ordinance G. ANALYSIS• This plat is a simple filing to resolve an issue of financial concern to the owner. There are no public issue E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1103 of import except for street improvements which the Board of Directors will be required to resolve. Dedication of right- of-way to collector standard will be accomplished by filing the plat. The one lot final is some what unusual but not unheard of when dealing with utility costs. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat and waivers as filed. Subject to comments under Items D and F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) This applicant was not present and was not represented. There was a brief discussion of the reason for filing. No issues of concern were developed. The issue was forwarded to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Richard wood, of the Staff, offered the staff recommendation and additional comments to the effect that this item was retained on the regular agenda due to there being no one present at the Subdivision Committee meeting held on June 27, 1996 to discuss the technical and design issues. At this time there are no outstanding issues to be dealt with. The only matter of concern is the waiver request which has been submitted by the property owner which is a waiver of boundary street improvements on Green Road. wood identified the plat and its location being at the extreme south end of Pulaski County, almost on the Saline County line. This plat is a none issue type of replat and the only reason for the platting action is to permit the owner to obtain water to a smaller lot. Chairman Putnam then asked if there was anyone present in the audience representing the application. The applicant was present in the rear of the room and identified himself. He offered that he had no comments to add to the staff recommendation. The Chairman then asked the Commission if they had questions or if they desired to move to a motion on this item. A motion for approval was offered by Commissioner Adcock. The motion was, it be approved as presented which would include the variance request to the City Board. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 3 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1104 NAME: ROCK RIDGE ROAD SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Rock Ridge Road at Highway 10 (immediately south of Lake Maumelle) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Bob Beason White-Daters 4125 Studer Road 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 821-4710 374-1666 AREA: 13.1 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 750 ZONING: None -outside PROPOSED USES: Single Family Jurisdiction of Zoning PLANNING DISTRICT: 20, Pinnacle CENSUS TRACT: 42.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Boundary Street Improvements 2) Double frontage lots BACKGROUND• This is a semi -rural area in the west end of the planning jurisdiction. The area is in the design and development stages of a water improvement district. This district will probably generate a number of plats in the near future as the mains are installed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop a residential plat utilizing the current Rock Ridge Road and building other improvements to less than full urban standards. Septic tanks will be used in as much as there is no sanitary sewer system in the area. No phasing plan was submitted but it is assumed that the plat will be phased to meet market need for the area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The topographic information is incomplete but it appears that the land rises 30± feet from Hwy. 10 to the east property boundary. There are no abrupt changes in grade. This hill mass is generally undisturbed. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1104 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction. Stormwater detention, ADPC&E permit, USACE permit, grading permit, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. Since there does not exist a Master Street Plan for this area, recommend deferral or approval based on the assumed standards. Highway 10 is a principal arterial and would require 110 feet of right-of-way with added lanes to bring to 30 feet from centerline. Staff can support a 5 foot utility and drainage easement with the existing shown 50 feet of right-of-way due to absence of a MSP. Staff does feel that since Highway 10 in this area is still rural in nature full Master Street Plan widening is not appropriate. However, staff would support a waiver of the full standards (assuming they are adopted prior to approval of this preliminary plat) with the condition that Highway 10 be widened to accommodate left turns into the two streets with appropriate shoulders. These streets are in a curve with speeds in excess of 55 MPH. 1992 traffic count is 5860 ADT similar to current collector volumes. Current pavement is 28 feet in width, collector standard is 36 feet. The cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to residential street standards. The lengths would indicate a need for normal residential street standards, including sidewalks. AHTD permits will be required. Street lights are required for this street and subdivision, coordinate their construction with street construction. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Outside service boundary - no comment Water: Execution of annexation agreement is required. Water main extension required. Arkla: OK AP&L: No response, this writing Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: 50 feet minimum radius on turn- around. K July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1104 County Planning: • Concern expressed about water quality in Maumelle water shed. • Septic systems should be closely reviewed by county sanitarian. • Consider width of Rock Ridge if additional lots are added. It is county maintained. • Open ditch section for improvements is OK provided design is approved by county and bonded one year. Planning Division: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape No comment Planning Staff The following are deficiencies in the submittal and plat design. • No survey stamp included. • Source of dedication or right-of-way easement on current Rock Ridge Road. • Will there be phasing of lots. • Source of title - ownership certificates. • 750 feet unnamed street • Location of water line to service site, will septic tanks work/perk tests. • Boundary data deficient, need angles, bearings etc. • All building lines • Contour information incomplete • Abutting plats and/or owners • Legal description missing • Phasing plan • PAGIS Monument • Engineer certificate blank • Show pavement and right-of-way width on Highway 10. • Bill of Assurance is required. • Street names required, show. • Corner radii at Highway 10 on both streets G. ANALYSIS• This plat is viewed by staff of Planning as well as Public works to be to far out of conformance to deal with at this meeting. There are a number of areas of requirement that 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1104 this owner may not be willing to address, such as street improvements. This engineer is placed in a difficult situation by not having done a proper survey, but working from an old survey. Much of that survey information is not shown here. This owner needs to discuss this matter with his engineer, redraft his application and return for the August Planning Commission meeting. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That this preliminary be deferred to the Subdivision agenda on August 29, 1996. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was present as was Tim Daters, the engineer for the plat. Both Planning and Public Works Staff outlined what were, staff felt, to many issues to resolve at Subdivision Committee. Mr. Daters offered comments concerning the manner of the filing and what they had hoped to accomplish. A number of questions were raised by Committee members as to why the filing when it was apparently not ready. The owned indicated he was somewhat taken unaware by the staff's requirements and inability to support waivers. After commentary on how to proceed the owner decided he would agree to deferral. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final disposition. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff identified for the Commission this applicant's request for deferral to August 29, 1996 Subdivision Hearing. The request is based upon the Subdivision Committee meeting wherein the engineer and the owner observed more problems and developing issues than they were prepared to deal with. They have requested time to reconsider their application in time for consideration in the next review cycle of the Subdivision Committee. Staff feels comfortable with the deferral. A brief discussion of the matter was followed by a motion to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 4 FILE NO.: S-1102 NAME: TOUCHSTONE SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: 6301 Dan Glover Road DEVELOPER• William E. Touchstone 6301 Dan Glover Road Little Rock, AR ENGINEER• Ben Kittler, Jr. 701 North Reynolds Road Bryant, AR 72022 847-5263 AREA: 7.93 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: #17, Crystal Valley CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND• 1) Pipe -stem lot on Lot 2 2) Street Improvements The staff has little or no background information other than this subdivider desires water to both the current house on Dan Glover frontage and the new house being constructed on Lot 2. The Little Rock Water Works will not set a meter on Lot 2 without that lot having frontage on the street with water main. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To obtain water to each of two lots by platting a pipe -stem front for Lot 2 at 20 feet and platting an elongated finger of land to Lot 1 so as to assure frontage on the street with the water main (Whipporwill Lane). B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This property, both lots, has been selectively cleared. One house exists and another appears to be under construction. The terrain is generally flat, many mature trees remain and the lots are served by county standard chip seal roads. Public Transportation None in this area July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1102 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication for both streets. 25 feet from centerline. If this becomes a 3 lot subdivision versus lot split, street improvements are required by staff unless advised otherwise by the City Attorney. All drives must be asphalt or concrete from street to right-of-way in accordance with City Ordinance prior to final platting property. Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Outside service area - no comment Water: Water Works discourages lots served in this manner. Pipe -stem lots do not afford proper access for fire protection. A front foot charge of $150.00 applies to lots outside Improvement District No. 318. AP&L: No response this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: OK - outside city County Planning: Flood information OK - verified. Planning Division: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are several issues of concern yet to be resolved. The first of these is whether the lot on Whipporwill should be a party to this plat. The two pipe -stems undoubtedly were taken from that land. If so, it must be included. The pipe -stems may vary in width since Lot 1 is not a true pipe - stem it can be 20 feet in width. The stem to Lot 2 must be 30 feet in width to conform to Public Works, Planning and 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1102 water Works minimum. The following are other issues for resolution: • Street improvements on both streets, dimension and right- of-way dimension • owners of abutting land • Show PAGIS Monuments G. ANALYSIS• After resolution of the several technical and property line issues attendant to this plat, it will be no different than numerous pipe -stem lots that have been approved previously. Staff always has reservations about creating lots like Lot 2 in this plat. However many times there is no option by the time the issue is filed with our office. Typically, a house has been started, titles change hands and finance commitments made. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat subject to the several items noted in D, E and F above. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was not present nor was be represented. The Staff presented its concerns about the land division, access and possible omission of another lot that may have to be included. A lengthy discussion followed involving how these several issues could be remedied. The staff indicated that if the lot on Whipporwill is included and an additional 10 feet of land was added to the Lot 2 pipe -stem most of the problems would be solved. It was stated by staff that the pipe -stem waiver was not necessary if Lot 2 were a minimum 60 feet on Whipporwill Lane. In that instance, we would be dealing with a conventional three lot plat. Staff indicated that an effort would be made to remedy the problems prior to the hearing if possible. STAFF UPDATE: (JULY 3, 1996) The engineer on this application reported information required by staff and stated the outlot on Whipporwill is not derived from this land area. Therefore, we cannot require it inclusion in the plat. That being the case, staff has suggested that Lot 1, pipe - stem be reduced to 10 feet and limited to a waterline use only 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1102 and Lot 2 be increased to a 30 foot width. These were the only issues of consequence. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present this item. Richard Wood, of the Staff, identified the subdivision, basic issues, location of the plat and the specific waiver which will require City Board of Directors' attention. Wood indicated that this two -lot plat required Planning Commission attention because of the specific structure of the plat and the waiver and the specific prohibition of pipe -stem lots. Wood said that as a result of the Subdivision Committee meeting and further discussion with the engineer and owner, a resolution will be recommended to resolve the width of the pipe -stem. The width of stem to serve the front lot facing upon Dan Glover Road have a pipe -stem of 10 feet in width running to Whippoorwill Lane. This will provide frontage for a water meter and would be utilized only as a water easement. The lot's legal frontage would be on Dan Glover Road. The rear lot or lot 2 which requires the waiver of pipe -stem would be provided a 30 foot wide pipe -stem for both access and utility easement to Whippoorwill Lane. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question to Staff, to refresh her memory of the history of pipe -stem lots. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the last several years wherein pipe -stems have been specifically prohibited and the reason for that prohibition being based upon a past history of abuse of the design privilege in the Subdivision Ordinance. Wood concluded his response by stating "currently in order to receive a waiver to allow pipe -stem lot, an owner is required to show some cause or reason why he cannot do it in another manner." There being no further questions by the Commission or comment from others present, the Chairman placed the item on the floor for a motion. A motion to approve the Touchstone Addition and recommend the waiver to the City Board was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S-1073-B NAME: ARKANSAS SYSTEMS OFFICE PARK -- REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Chenal Parkway at Systems Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Chenal Technical Center White-Daters, Eng. 425 West Capitol Avenue 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 374-8005 AREA: 10.83 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: O-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND• PROPOSED USES: Office #19 - Chenal One driveway per lot This plat revision is a follow-up to a prior plat that created two acre plus lots. At this time the developer proposes to reduce the lot sizes. The streets and basic infrastructure have been approved in prior plats that create Arkansas Systems Development site, a lake and potential for future office uses. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To change the lot format to smaller lots and provide at least one lot for a PCD application for a post office. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The plat area is gently rolling land with some construction underway on the north part of the plat. The site has been selectively cleared over time. Public Transportation There is no service to these lots. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1073-B D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Plat indicates limits of detailed floodway study incorrectly. Plat does not indicate BFE's thru site as developed from USACE FIS. Plat does not transition BFE data back into FIS on north side of property. Prior to Planning Commission correct and resubmit. Provide plans for stormwater detention for subdivision prior to construction south of Arkansas Systems Drive. The lots are two small to provide effective stormwater control on a lot by lot basis. ADPC&E permit, USACE permit, grading permit, development permit for special flood hazard area, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. Due to size of lots, applicant needs to provide a plan acceptable to staff that limits the driveway spacing to 300 feet on the unnamed new commercial collector and Kirk Road (Collector). The requested variance of driveway spacings as provided in the City Ordinance Section 30-43 is unacceptable. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Water: Acreage charges per front foot, on site fire plan needed, dam requires rebuild prior to main extension over it. AP&L: No response this writing Southwestern Bell: OK Arkla: OK Fire Department: OK County Planning: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape No Comment The following plat elements require attention. • Bill of Assurance - need copy. K July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1073-B • Show lot areas/most below minimum area (2 acres by 0-2 district) • Angle on south point of Lot 4 - severe • Explain easements - driveways, utility, etc., that connect boundary streets • Correct average lot size note. G. ANALYSIS• If not for the lot area issues, this plat would be a typical office plat with typical design issues. The eastern portion of this development should be rezoned to accommodate small lot office development. "0-2" as devised by the original drafters of the Zoning Ordinance was that these lots be large multistory buildings on large acreage or platted tracts or perhaps multiple large buildings. The plat configuration offered is not compatible with that approach or ordinance concept. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the plat as filed be withdrawn in part to eliminate all lots north and east of the post office site that are less than two acres and retain the large lots across the street from the post office and the lot to the south. This will permit the plat, the post office PCD and site plan to continue to the July 18th hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant and engineer were present. They offered an overview of the project and addressed staff concerns. Mr. Daters, the engineer of record, indicated that he and his client had read the ordinance different; therefore, the small lots in 0- 2. At this point a general discussion of the plat issue outlined in Planning and Public works comments was held. David Scherer offered some suggestions about curb cuts and specially the interlot access easements. He felt the plan offered presented problems to both public and lot owners. The staff and committee then discussed how to proceed and not hold up the post office project. A consensus was reached by Mr. Daters agreeing to withdraw portions of the plat that had 2 acres minimum problems and revise the drawing. He was instructed to return the revised by close of day one week from Committee meeting. The issue will be reported as an update for the Commission prior to the hearing. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1073-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its recommendation and the item. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the preliminary plat and the reasoning behind retaining this item on the regular agenda. The primary reason for the regular agenda placement being the spacing variance for driveways along a new commercial street to be created to serve these lots. The spacing requirement of ordinance being some 300 feet between driveways. There are a number of instances on this plat where the spacing is significantly below 300 feet. Wood also pointed out that Public works remains concerned about drainage and water detention on the site because specific information has not been provided. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Tim Daters, of White-Daters Engineers, representing the application. Mr. Daters stated that he had met in recent days with the Engineering Division of Public Works. He would defer to David Scherer, of Public Works, to respond to this issue. He felt that Mr. Scherer could provide the Commission with the answers required at this point. Mr. Scherer began his comments by identifying the postal facility on one of the lots on this preliminary plat is being one of the key issues in the driveway spacing. He provided some background in the ordinance as basis for the variance request for the spacing. After briefly explaining the issues, he told the Commission that his office was still somewhat confused as to whether this type of variance or waiver request was required to be submitted to the Board of Directors. Mr. Scherer then deferred to Richard wood, of the Staff, to follow-up on comments concerning waivers. Wood pointed out that Staff had received several years ago specific instruction from the City Attorney to the effect that any waiver from a standard within the Subdivision Ordinance required specific approval by the Board of Directors by ordinance. Mr. Scherer then stated that staff would forward this waiver on to the City Board then with a recommendation of approval. He then closed his remarks by stating staff of his office, specifically Steve Loop, had worked with the engineer of record on this project. According to his knowledge, the issues concerning detention and drainage have been addressed. Mr. Tim Daters then returned to the microphone to offer comment. He stated that proceeding to the Board for waivers was not a 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1073-B problem any way since the PCD application for the post office would require a board action. The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for a motion. A motion was made to approve the Arkansas System's preliminary plat with the attached waiver being forwarded to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation of approval. The vote on the motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 5 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 5-A FILE NO.: 5-1107 NAME: ROBBINS ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Northside of Pride Valley Road about 600 feet west of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: LAND SURVEYOR: Raymond and Peggy Robbins 011en Dee Wilson 15575 Kanis Road 2523 N. Willow Street Little Rock, AR 72211 No. Little Rock, AR 72114 758-8333 AREA: 9.98 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Street improvements on both boundary streets. 2) One lot final plats - two phase BACKGROUND: This owner approached staff about the division of this ownership for purposes of creating a lot for a family member. The sale or transfer required a plat since the land area to be split was less than 5 acres. Staff recommended a two lot plat for commission action and follow-up by the Board of Directors for waivers. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To create two lots, one for a family member and the balance of the site to be retained with the existing house. One lot would be recorded, the other would be retained on preliminary. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land is flat grade with a large drainage way along the north and west boundary. A portion of the site has been selectively cut. Most is tree -covered, undeveloped. The boundary streets are two- lane county road standard with open ditches. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1107 Public Transportation There is no service to the lots. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication for both streets. Pride valley is a collector and requires 30 feet from centerline and Kanis is a minor arterial that requires 45 feet from centerline. If this becomes a 3 lot subdivision versus lot split street improvements are required by staff, unless advised otherwise by the City Attorney. Currently, Kanis is a 22 foot street and Pride Valley is an 18 foot street. Neither have curb and gutter or sidewalks. All drives must be asphalt or concrete from street to right-of-way in accordance with City Ordinance prior to final platting property. Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: outside service area - no comment Water: Acreage charge of $300.00 per acre. Any water service on Pride Valley Road will require a main extension. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: OK County Planning: Construction on any lot involving floodplain must obtain a permit from county planning, before beginning construction. F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: No Comment The following are some plat and submittal items, to be resolved. K July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1107 • Certificate of Owner - source of title • Current right-of-way both abutting streets • Show water or sewer service lines. • Type of monumentation/PAGIS • East line Lot #1 - dimension • Internal lot angles • Abutting owners • City limits line at Kanis Road G. ANALYSIS• This plat is a typical two lot plat in all respects except that the owner desires to retain the larger portion of his ownership on preliminary plat for future development. The inclusion at this time would be very costly improvement wise since his home is on the remainder. Assessments by utilities, tax assessor and Master Street Plan are significant. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat as filed including the waivers. Subject to items in D, E and F. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Mr. Robbins, the owner, was present and offered comments on his application. The staff presented Planning and Public Works thoughts on completion of the plat detail. There were a number of minor issues such as the ownership certificate that are easy to remedy. Mr. Robbins was directed to get with his surveyor and provide the details remaining to staff within a week of the Subdivision Committee meeting. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that staff present the application and its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the application and the reason for filing. Wood included in his comments a statement as to the effect of the Master Street Plan upon this property and the two lots involved, specifically the width of roadway and the right-of-way which would be required. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1107 Wood stated that in light of City Attorney's recent comments to issues of this nature, staff did not believe there was sufficient nexus in circumstance to require the substantial street improvements for purpose of building one residential structure. At the conclusion of staff comments, Commissioner Lichty asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to once again restate the exact nature of the waivers on these two streets. Wood restated his previous comments which were that Pride Valley Road was a collector street with a 36 foot pavement and a 60 foot right-of- way. One-half of the pavement improvement will be required by the applicant. The applicant does proposed to dedicate the one- half of 60 feet right-of-way. On Kanis Road, this is an arterial street which would be multiple lanes, perhaps five within a 90 foot right-of-way. In this instance, the applicant proposes to dedicate the right-of-way but would require relief from the one- half pavement improvement. Commissioner Lichty then offered comments that the abutting property is zoned 0-2 to the east and R-2 to the west. There was potential for development of this property in the future which could cause requirements for improvements to occur. He closed his comment by asking Staff how this waiver would be affected by the development of those properties and the placement of their improvements. Wood responded by saying that the applicant in this situation has specifically requested that the larger body of his ownership be retained on preliminary plat and not recorded at this time. This leads staff to suggest that our recommendation to the City Board will not be a complete waiver but a deferral of improvements to some future time when the larger portion of the property is developed. Wood stated that the 0-2 portion of the property to the east had been attempted on previous occasions for rezoning to a more intense use and that Commissioner Lichty's comments were well - placed. In a further discussion between Richard Wood, of the Staff, and Commissioner Lichty, it was pointed out that the loss of improvements would only be attached to lot 1. Lot 1 is the current lot being proposed for record and construction of a residence. But perhaps the City Board could defer that improvement in association with the larger body of improvements. Commissioner Lichty then suggested that he would like to ask comments from other commissioners on this subject. The Chair then recognized Commissioner Ernest who offered comments generally along the lines of those offered by Commissioner Lichty. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1107 In his comments, Commissioner Ernest specifically asked whether the 235 feet of frontage is being requested for complete waiver at this time. Wood explained the process to be that, staff would approve a one lot final plat which would go on record but no street improvements would be assessed based on the waiver. The balance of the property would be retained on preliminary plat and not final platted until some future development is proposed. Commissioner Hawn then offered a comment that he understood, that, if there were waivers granted at this time there would be no liability to this property owner, but it was extended as a variance or deferral. Then, it was potential for obtaining the improvements at some future point. Questions concerning the appropriateness of the improvement requirements and the circumstance was posed to the City Attorney. Mr. Giles asked that the question be restated. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief commentary outlining what he understood was the issue at hand. The nexus relationship between improvements and what was being constructed. Giles preferenced his comments by asking a question as to whether or not the improvements would be in excess of those required by the Master Street Plan. Richard Wood, of the Staff, said they would not and both streets would be assessed at the current standard. Giles stated that he usually takes a position that the connection between the proposal and the street improvements is the Master Street Plan. Unless there is an excess requirement above the Master Street Plan, then there is a nexus present. He said the answer in this instance is "yes" the Master Street Plan requirements can be applied. David Scherer, of Public works, came forward and offered a brief commentary as to what Public Works most recently required with respect to street improvements on small plats or single family development and do not specifically require street improvements. In recent times Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, had instructed him that Public works must cease that practice in as much as the Master Street Plan controls the circumstance. He stated that she instructed him that the ordinance does not give Public Works the right of waiver or variance. If a person subdivides property, they will do their boundary street improvements. David Scherer offered a follow-up comment to the affect that as he understood it that Staff of Planning Commission as well as his office could support taking the issue to the Board of Directors for a variance which would be a deferral of the improvements. This would be to a point were property is rezoned or a change of use is involved or perhaps further resubdividing the property. At that time the street improvements would be assessed. 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1107 Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office buttressed Mr. Scherer's comments by saying that in effect we are not waiving anything at this point. we are simply deferring those improvements until a more appropriate occasion. A brief discussion involving all of the parties pursued the issue somewhat further as to the appropriateness of the deferral as opposed to a waiver. Richard wood closed the discussion by saying that it has been practice of the Board of Directors over recent years to avoid total waiver of improvements. The deferral of those improvements to a specific time or activity is more appropriate. Chairman Putnam then offered a clarification of the issue before the Commission. This would be that the lot 1 improvements as well as lot 2 would be included in the deferral. It was again pointed out that the deferral by the City Board will run with the title of the property much like a waiver would. A future owner or developer of the property will have to pick-up the requirement. At this point, a discussion moved to an appropriate motion on this item. Commissioner Hawn attempted a motion which was as follows: Improvements on lot 2 be deferred until such time as that property is developed or rezoned further and that the requirement be attached to lot 1 also. The plat be approved as recommended by the staff. Steven Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, asked Commissioner Hawn whether it would appropriate to add another trigger to the motion and the action of the Commission which would be the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Hawn accepted that idea as part of his motion. After a second was received on the motion Commissioner McCarthy injected a statement asking whether the Robbins were present. Her question to them was whether or not they understood what the Commission was doing and the terminology being applied. Chairman Putnam then asked Mr. Robbins to come forward to the microphone. Mr. Robbins came forward and responded to the Commissioner McCarthy's question. He stated that he understood the Commission was recommending the deferral of any improvements on the abutting street to this property until there is a future development or rezoning of his property. At the Chairman's prompting, he also responded by saying he understood the deferral covered both lots not just lot 2. Mr. Robbins further stated that he understood there would be no requirement for street improvements at this time attached to building the house on lot 1. He also understood they would be dedicating 30 feet of right-of-way on Pride Valley July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1107 from the centerline and 40 feet or so along Kanis Road for arterial right-of-way. At this point, Commissioner Lichty injected a comment or a question as to what happens on this property with respect to improvements if the 0-2 property or the larger property to the west were to be developed with the street improvements. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a response to what he heard the Commission saying is those properties developing would not trigger the requirement that the improvements would be constructed for these two lots. This would leave a space in between those developments. Commissioner Lichty stated that he was unalterably opposed to that occurrence. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to think about it. He continued by saying perhaps the trigger should include the two abutting properties as well as the two lots in question. Chairman Putnam inserted a thought that the other lands are not involved in this application and he did not think such an attachment or condition could be applied. There was an extended discussion of the improvements and to how such an attachment could occur or should occur. Commissioner Hawn offered clarification of his motion that he felt effectively dealt with this property because we do not normally assess improvements of the type required to attachment with rebuilding or developing single family. He stated that if these two lots remained as single family, then what happens around them should not control what they are required to do. Jim Lawson added the thought that if you are on any arterial street in this city and you do not develop your property but retain it as single family use, then if other property develop around you there is a gap. In a response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, he said staff was not necessarily happy with it but it is the way streets are built in this community. Commissioner Lichty asked for clarification as to who would build those improvements in this event. Lawson responded by saying it would be typically be a public project. Commissioner Brandon then inserted a thought in this discussion that she felt like you could not hold this applicant responsible for what the adjacent neighbors are doing or developing on their properties. In effect, this is what we are doing by assessing improvements based upon their development. David Scherer, of Public Works, then offered a comment at this point. He stated that typically the experience of property in these kinds of relationships is, they are ready for the street 7 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1107 improvements to be developed. If there is already development in the area providing for the development of the streets. The properties will develop adjacent to each other in a manner to flesh out the street. Especially by the time the traffic volumes are there, which require the street will typically be there such as on Bowman Road and on certain portions of Kanis Road. If there are gaps, then it is controlled by a narrow time line and those gaps are filled in. Commissioner Adcock asked if the motion could be restated. The Commission deferred to City Attorney's representative, Steven Giles, to restate the motion. The motion was that the staff recommendation be approved with a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements on both Pride Valley and Kanis Road until such time as either lot 1 or lot 2 is redeveloped to a more intense use than single family development use. The Chairman noted that a motion had been made and had been seconded. He asked for a vote on the motion. A vote on the motion produced denial of the requested plat and variances. At this point Jim Lawson, of the Staff, pointed out the applicant could perhaps proceed with the plat without the waivers. However, the street improvements would perhaps cost more than the house they were proposing to construct. Therefore, the only option the applicant has is not to pursue the construction of a residence. Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, pointed out that there was no plat approval out of that motion; therefore, the applicant cannot do anything at this point. Giles clarified his remarks by saying the motion was to approve the plat and recommend the deferral of improvements since they are tied together and the plat failed. Jim Lawson stated that the Commission could perhaps at this point proceed to approve the plat and simply not deal with the improvements at this time. Commissioner Adcock raised a question at this point as to whether or not the Commission could approve the plat and then let the applicant take his request for a variance or deferral to the City Board. A lengthy discussion followed involving potential means of achieving the property owners' goal of platting the property. Jim Lawson clarified the situation again by saying that this applicant could not proceed to the Board because he does not have a preliminary plat approval recommendation from the Planning Commission. In response to a question from the Chairman, Steven Giles of the City Attorney's Office stated that the Commission would have to rescind its vote on the previous motion before it could take action to do other than what it has already done. A motion and a 13 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1107 vote to approve the preliminary plat could send the item on to the Board. Jim Lawson stated this would at least allow Mr. Robbins to pursue his plat and in the event the Board did not approve the deferral or waivers he did not have to pursue the plat further and he has no commitments. But without an approved plat from the Planning Commission, he cannot proceed to the City Board. A discussion between the Chairman, Commissioner Lichty and Steve Giles determined it was Mr. Robbins' call as to whether or not he wanted the item rescinded from the previous vote or another vote taken on the preliminary plat alone. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the Chairman and Mr. Robbins as to what his options were and the appropriateness of some of the comments which have been made. At the end of this discussion, Mr. Robbins stated for the record that he would like the Commission to rescind its previous vote and vote again on the preliminary plat alone. Commissioner Adcock then offered a motion that the previous vote be expunged from the record and that the case be reconsidered. This motion passed by unanimous vote. A second motion was then made by Commissioner Hawn that the preliminary plat be approved without benefit of the waiver request. A vote on that motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. The Commission offered no recommendation to the Board on street waivers or deferral. 9 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-6165 NAME: HUMANE SOCIETY OF PULASKI COUNTY -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 14600 Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER• Humane Society of Pulaski County 14600 Colonel Glenn Road Little Rock, AR 72210 227-6166 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm Frank Riggins P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 3.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "PCD" Proposed PROPOSED USES: Humane Society Animal Shelter PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Street Improvements along Colonel Glenn Road 2) Filing fee BACKGROUND• This application is the culmination of much effort and time in design, site search and fundraising. Planning Staff has over time assisted in attempts to locate a good affordable properly zoned site with the result that the society has chosen to remain on the existing site. The property is zoned R-2 as is much of the area adjacent. A PCD was chosen as the vehicle since it afforded site plan review for all involved and would probably be better received. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A one lot PCD with one primary structure and removal of all existing building and use areas once constructed. Parking, landscaping and all basic elements of ordinance are addressed. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A tract of land occupied by a varied and nonfunctioning or poorly functioning animal compound. Much of the activity is outdoor. The parking does not meet any standard of design. Maneuvering of cars on the site involves the street creating a hazard. There are multiple buildings and pens crowded onto mostly the east one-half of the site which has over time had many of the trees removed. Colonel Glenn Road is a principal arterial street on the Master Street Plan but is a two lane county asphalt road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Staff has at this writing received numerous calls primarily from adjacent owners opposing the project. There are ten letters in the file from objectors. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. Street improvements for this principal arterial are required. Dedicate right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline and construct 100 percent of culvert crossings to accommodate a 25 year rain event. Street improvements involve widening to 30 feet from centerline with a sidewalk. 1992 traffic count appears to be in the 3000 to 5000 ADT range for the section adjacent to site. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Fire Department/County Plannin Wastewater: Outside service area - No comment Water: Has existing service, contact Water Works if additional service is needed. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: Outside city limits County Planning: OK E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for buffers meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the business activity of this site from adjacent residential properties to the north, east and west. Existing natural dense vegetation on site can count toward fulfilling this requirement. The Landscape Ordinance requires that six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscape with interior islands. The proposed western parking area will require 544 square feet of interior landscaping while the proposed eastern parking lot is short of the 1,116 square foot interior landscaping requirement by 243 square feet. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic. The following are the follow-up items on the PCD submittal and basic questions about development. • Timing on existing building removal • Site lighting, how tall, how many, where placed and directed. • On site drainage features • Treatment of outdoor runs • Hours of operation • Signage, building and freestanding • Any overhear doors • Dead animal disposal • Sound systems, external • Dumpster, treatment and pickup time • Number of full time personnel, paid or otherwise. • will there be a full time on site manager? Planning Division: The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. There has been no change in the area. There is no justification for plan amendment at this time. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 G. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff has been acquainted with some of the needs, issues and players in this development proposal for some time. This includes people on both sides of the issue at hand. We are well aware that this property was not included at the time of the extraterritorial zoning establishment. The concerns that we have voiced to those involved is that how such a project is done is at least as important as whether it is done. There are few sites that we can point to as alternate locations, but each of them has negatives much as the neighborhood at hand. The thorough review of this project by staff, City Engineer and myriad others will surely produce an end -product that can better suit all involved. We do not feel that simply saying no and remain as is a solution. We feel the nonconforming status has some value to staying here and rebuilding. A planned development is an acceptable means of doing so. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that th retitled as a PD-C in as within this building are neighborhood involvement many design issues raise Department in paragraphs SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: e project be approved but that it be much as all the uses included one use. We strongly recommend as well as addressing all of the d by Planning and Public Works D, E and F above. (JUNE 27, 1996) The application was represented by Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm. Mr. Riggins was accompanied by others as agents of the Humane Society. Mr. Riggins presented the application and addressed the concerns offered by City Staff. A lengthy discussion followed with numerous questions about traffic, drainage, construction and others. Chief among these was a question as to whether the Humane Society has met with neighbors. The response was no, and this prompted the Committee to direct they do so, before the public hearing. David Scherer, of Public Works, offered comments on traffic and access plus safety issues attendant to the current poor parking arrangement. The curb cut spacing at less than 300 feet was not viewed as a problem since there is over 200 feet between them and a long property front on the street. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Prior to the initiation of discussion of this item, the Chairman offered extended comment on the effects of the shortage of commissioners at this meeting and the potential effect upon such an item as the one about to be presented. Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office offered comments. His comments had to do with the applicant's ability to bring an application back to the Commission of the same or substantially the same request within one year of action. The item about to be heard is a rezoning or a PCD item which has to go to the City Board. So to make a point of clarification, the City Attorney in concurring with Jim Lawson determined that should this item not receive the required six votes for approval or denial, it would go on to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation of denial. The Chairman then identified that the application belongs to the applicant and they had a right to present their case and proceed with the application before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, injected at this point a statement that perhaps the staff needed to layout the basic issues and offer staff recommendation. The Chairman concurred in this comment and asked that staff proceed. Wood stated that he would make a brief comment and offered that David Scherer, of Public Works, perhaps could offer some commentary on the street improvements that would be involved. Wood proceeded to read the staff recommendation and presented the application as a PCD. He outlined the basic issues and the staff position being one of approval supporting maintenance of a use that is already there. The proposal before the Commission would only improve the circumstances. At the end of Wood's comments, Jim Lawson of the Staff offered a comment. He had received information that there was a property line dispute involved in this issue about to be presented, but this is not an issue the Planning Commission could resolve. The Chairman commented this was a title issue and the title company had apparently made the description error. However, this would be resolved. David Scherer, of Public works, then came forward to offer a brief comment. Mr. Scherer's comments included notations on the type of street improvements which would be constructed if this plan is approved and the difference between this and the Master Street Plan requirement. He also discussed the spacing on the driveways which would be required normally 300 feet, but in this case they 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: _ 6 ICont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-6165 are somewhat closer. The total property frontage is a quite long frontage. Scherer also commented on the drainage issues which have been discussed by the developer and Public Works and those have been covered. Chairman Putnam stated he felt like the Commission needed to backup a little bit to a point where we could identify the spokeperson or persons for the Humane Society and what they wish to do in these circumstances. Wes Lowder came forward identifying himself with his firm as being an agent for the Humane Society in this application. Mr. Lowder stated that he hated proceeding under these current circumstances with the unforeseen attendance problem with the Commission and the large number of people present. These folks have to come back for another hearing at a later date, if deferred. He stated, "even though the Commission might have a problem with the vote, even if someone abstains, the item will still have the opportunity of proceeding to the Board of Directors for a hearing at that level." Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Lowder if his constituents or the applicants were in accordance with this comment. Mr. Lowder stated that in the interest of time and considering the agenda today and the number of people here, he did not want all of his side of the issue or the involved parties to speak to the Commission on the application. At this point, Mr. Lowder asked that all the persons present in the room on the Humane Society issue being for the application to please stand. There were a number of persons standing, approximately 20 people. At this point, Mr. Lowder identified Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm as being the person who filed this application and attended the Subdivision Committee and that he would offer the presentation. Chairman Putnam directed a question to a Mr. Engstrom, the lead person for the opposition to the Humane Society proposal. The question being whether or not they had concerns about the applicant proceeding with making a presentation of the application before hearing from the objectors. Mr. Engstrom's response was that they should proceed with presenting the application. Mr. Frank Riggins then came forward and proceeded to offer commentary on the application. He offered a brief presentation of the issue and restated some of the points raised by Richard Wood, of the Staff, and the staff recommendation. He first stated this is a 3 1/2 acre tract located along the north side of Colonel Glenn Road and this property had been occupied approximately 20 years by the Humane Society with the previous user being a chinchilla or fur ranch of some sort. He stated the proposal before the Planning Commission ri July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-61 was a state of the art replacement structure or facility for the existing activities on the property. He briefly identified the existing circumstance for the buildings and grounds being in a state of poor repair with a strong need for upgrade. He stated that the Humane Society is currently involved in a fund raising program to construct this building. He identified the intended structure to serve the kinds of animal maintenance and care which the current building provides, except it would be provided in an enclosed building plus allowing four educational office space, treatment rooms, adoption rooms and such. He stated the primary intent is to keep the animals indoor with some of the cages having guillotine type doors so that the animals can get fresh air and spend some time outdoors as well as allowing maintenance of their cages on the interior. The animals would be retained on the inside of the building at night. He described the proposed plan as allowing more on -site parking so as to resolve the current problems on -site. He stated the plan would provide for landscaping buffers and landscaping in accordance with city code. He also restated a comment offered by David Scherer, of Public Works, that in this redevelopment there will be an additional lane provided on Kanis Road so as to provide a left turn lane to enter and exit the property. He stated the hours of operation will be from 1:00 to 8:00 p.m. from Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and on Saturday and Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The facility would be closed to public on Wednesdays. There will be one ground mounted monument type sign on the Colonel Glenn frontage and that the parking lot lighting will be programmed to go off one hour after the facility closes each day. In closing his comments and presentation, he requested the Planning Commission's aid and assistance in the continuance of the Humane Society's program and efforts on this property. He stated that a "no" vote by the Planning Commission will simply keep them there where they are in the current facilities and would keep all of the other elements in place such as the poor parking, backing into Colonel Glenn, outdoor cages, etc. A "no" vote would be rejection of what they feel will be a significant improvement of what is there now. The Chairman then turned his attention to the cards of speakers which had been turned in previously. He identified that there were three persons that had signed cards. After identifying them as being present, the Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes Lowder who came forward again. He stated for the record that there 15+ people present that he had encouraged not fill out cards and simply not overburdening the Commission's time with excessive number of speakers. He closed his comment by saying that he would appreciate these people being granted the same opportunity 7 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: _ _6(Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-6165 to speak that the opposition would be granted if they are all allowed to come forward to address the issue. Chairman Putnam identified that the Planning Commission had recently established a time line for hearing public hearing items and 45 minutes is the alloted time for hearing a case with both sides of the issue. Mr. Lowder stated that he wished to proceed with the three persons present, who wish to speak to the application. The first one to come forward was Ms. Shawna Skoronski. She made a single statement which was she wanted to hear the opposition's comments before proceeding. A brief discussion followed involving the Chairman and the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the procedure suggested by Ms. Skoronski. Steve Giles,of the City Attorney's Office, responded by saying that the bylaws proposed that the applicant present a case then the opposition. Again Ms. Skoronski stated that she would like to hear what the opposition is from those persons present. She appreciates the Commission's position relative to the bylaws, but she would like to know what those items are that she needs to respond to. A lengthy discussion followed involving the City Attorney and several commissioners as to the appropriateness of the action to be taken with no resolution. The Chairman then asked Ms. Skoronski if there were others present on the "for" side of the issue that wished to address the Commission at this time. She stated that there were not. It was agreed upon between Ms. Skoronski and the Chairman that he then offer the floor to the opposition. Mr. Steve Engstrom came forward as the principal or the leader of the opposition. Mr. Engstrom offered comments to the effect that he was the unofficial leader of the opposition representing most of the people that live in the valley below Ellis Mountain and in close proximity to this application. He requested that everyone present in the room in opposition to this application please stand (20+). He followed up by asking those who live in the valley remain standing and others be seated. He then turned his attention to those persons present who identified themselves as being in support of the application stand, if they lived in the valley. He proceeded with his presentation by identifying himself as an attorney and as resident of the area since March 1974, prior to the Humane Society's movement into the valley. Engstrom indicated that his patio and other outdoor facilities of his residential property had been affected by the activities of the Humane Society. He stated that his attendance at the meeting today was for one primary reason, to act as a panel moderator for a number of persons who wish to make prepared statements. He July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 stated that the opposition had worked diligently toward making a presentation and would present an organized objection in a serial manner. The objections would be presented by topics and by different spokespersons. He then moved his comments to a statement that he felt the Humane Society served a community purpose and was a noble cause. He did not want the issue of their activity in this regard to cloud the issue. He stated the issues which he saw were: first, being the enterprise as it exists and as proposed is simply to big for that site and whether the application presented to the Planning Commission is flawed in several respects with regard to noise and traffic, with waste and with regard to poor management. And last, they have too much going on to put it right here meaning that site. Engstrom identified the first speaker for the opposition as being Andrew Hubert. Mr. Hubert came forward and presented a brief statement then identified that he and his companion had bought a sound level meter to perform certain sound tests from certain distances. He stated that the presentation he was about to make was a recording of the noise level at approximately 60 feet from the outdoor pens. He then proceeded to produce a sound measuring device and a recording device on which he played back a tape of multiple dogs barking. At this point the tape becomes too noisy to pick up conversation which was attempted by Mr. Hubert above the noise of the tape playing and some of comments he offered had to do with the level of sound recording and pain threshold for a person observing these noise levels. He stated that this noise goes on behind the Humane Society at all hours of the day and night. After the playing of the tape, Mr. Hubert proceeded to offer some additional commentary. He introduced and identified a resident of the area by the name of Mrs. Beverly Williamson. He stated that this person had recently had their residence appraised and had been told by their appraiser that the value was reduced by the presence of the Humane Society. He stated that persons in the area were unable to entertain due to constant noise coming from the facility. Mr. Hubert then demonstrated with the assistance of another gentleman the coping skills utilized by neighbors in order to sleep at night. Much of the following conversation was off the microphone and was not legible but had to do with certain plugs that were inserted in the ears in order to baffle the sound disturbance. Mr. Hubert continued his commentary by stating that others in the area utilized the same thing plus fans or other devices to shield themselves from the noise disturbance. He stated a key question then as how all of this new facility provided for a reduction of these issues. He stated the construction of this building will bring the noise closer to residents than current and will 9 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 _ (Conte_ _ __ FILE NO.: Z-6165 increase an already intolerable situation and the increase in the number of dogs and traffic would inevitably increase an already bad situation. In closing, Mr. Hubert commented that as far as he knew all other central Arkansas facilities of similar nature are completely enclosed and he did not feel they were able to address the noise factor on the currently owned parcel. Mr. Engstrom then identified the second person as a presenter, Mr. Erin Glitten. Mr. Glitten proceeded to offer comments and in lieu of those that had been proposed by his father. He indicated that his propose in speaking was to address the issue of traffic. He pointed out safety related issues relating to traffic in this section of Colonel Glenn Road upon which a number of the persons present in opposition currently lived. He identified the Humane Society as being located on a short but dangerous stretch of Colonel Glenn Road. He identified the road as being very narrow with no shoulders and open ditches and a continuous set of blind curves. He identified that there were countless accidents over a period of years in this stretch of the roadway. He proceeded to offer statistics from the County Sheriff's Department and the Arkansas State Police which resulted in him saying that 31% of the accidents along Colonel Glenn Road in this part of the county were produced in this area which is 10% of the roadway. He then turned his comments to the Little Rock Master Street Plan and identified that which is required by ordinance and this was a principal arterial with 110 feet of right-of-way and would be at least five lanes with turning movement lanes provided. He also pointed out that the future development to this roadway to that standard is a considerable period off. He stated the right-of- way required for Colonel Glenn Road substantially reduces the amount of area available for the development of the site. He felt the dedication of right-of-way would reduce the property from over 3 acres to about 2.55 acres. This gentleman closed his remarks. Mr. Engstrom then identified the next speaker, Dr. Howard Stephens and Dr. Mary Baeyens. These two speakers addressed the subject of water and waste treatment. Dr. Stephens came forward and identified himself as having been past president of the Pulaski County Humane Society. He stated that he felt like at the time they moved to this location their size was appropriate to the amount of land being occupied and was adequate for the number of animals they were keeping. He identified a flood instance of the earlier occupancy by the Humane Society and the destructive effects of that flood. Most of the facility being under water. He offered photographic evidence of this circumstance. 10 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6165 As a nonconforming use on this premise within a single family neighborhood, they should go along at their current pace. But once they initiate an application to broaden their activities and expand, they have too much planned for this site and the neighborhood simply does not believe them when they offer the large parking lots, the large building and other activities on this narrow sliver of land. He felt this issue should be placed on a tract of land that is large enough to give an effective buffer. He stated 20 acres somewhere would solve the noise problem and other such activities. He stated that he did not believe them when they said they could not go some place else. At this point, Ms. Skoronski came forward again and offered a question to the staff. The question being did not the staff attempt to help the society earlier in attempting to locate another site that would be adequate. This generated a discussion between several parties of which some were lost because generally they were not speaking into the microphone. Jim Lawson addressed the Chairman saying he thought at this point, Mr. Lowder wanted to address the Commission relatively to a deferral of his application. Mr. Lowder came forward and stated for the record that they would like a deferral and an opportunity to answer some of the neighborhood's concerns. Jim Lawson then offered a statement which ended by offering the staff's assistance in setting up such a neighborhood meeting and identifying the Commission's issues which would be dealt with at that meeting. However, he specifically stated that he wanted to hold a civil meeting and address issues such as were addressed today and not where neighbors said they simply do not want the Society on this property. Therefore, the only purpose of that meeting would be to attempt to clarify the issues. However, this meeting would not be a meeting for him to attempt to gain the neighborhood support for the Humane Society. Commissioner Earnest inserted a thought that the issues to be addressed should be on the material submitted to the Commission. He identified items 1 through 5 on the petition. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, accepted this as the direction for staff and for the meeting. Commissioner Lichty then identified a person in the audience and asked him to come forward to make a comment if he had one to offer. This gentleman identified himself as Cole Williamson who is a resident of the Colonel Glenn area. The question that he posed was did not the Planning Commission offer to this group as well as others at the beginning of the meeting the opportunity to defer their case if they felt uncomfortable with the attendance of the Commission at this time. 11 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-6165 The question was clarified by Staff and identified by the Chairman that this issue dealt with the quorum present and those persons who may have desired a deferral due to that circumstance. The Chairman then offered an extended explanation of what he attempted to do at the early part of the meeting and it was the applicant's option to pursue the hearing at a later time. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner McCarthy who stated that she hoped the land boundary dispute could be resolved before it comes back to the Planning Commission. Jim Lawson pointed out the Planning Commission could not resolve the land dispute and he felt like the City Attorney's Office supported us in this contention. He stated that he proposes no structure or physical improvement be located in such a fashion as to encroach upon the disputed boundary. Commissioner McCarthy then stated her appreciation to the neighborhood opposition and congratulated them on doing a very good presentation. She also stated for the neighborhood that they should not leave here feeling this was all for naught but the issues were well presented and the Commission did hear them. Maybe once the neighborhood and the applicant are together and discuss this, some of the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Hawn then offered a motion. The motion being that this item be deferred until such time as the meeting can be held under the chairmanship of Mr. Lawson of the Staff. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 12 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z-5838-A NAME: DETECTION SYSTEMS -- PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 14703 Kanis Road DEVELOPER: Detection Systems, Inc. 14703 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 228-5500 ENGINEER• The Mehlburger Firm P. 0. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 2.92 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD/Proposed PCD PROPOSED USES: Office/Mini-Storage PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Improvements on Kanis Road BACKGROUND: This application is the extension of a POD whereby the owner was permitted to located his business offices on the lot in a transition zone. That zone extends along the west side of Kanis, south to Cooper Orbit and north toward Pride Valley Road. Commercial is not included in the current Planned Office District. That POD maintained the balance of the tract as residential without a plan. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To continue the development of this long narrow tract in a useful and productive manner. Proposed are six long buildings each about 20 feet by 250 feet long. The westernmost 50 feet of the tract is proposed as a buffer. There will be RV parking adjacent to the buffer. The POD use, detection systems will remain on the front 200 feet plus or minus. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5838-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is generally rising in elevation from the east at Kanis Road (460 feet M.S.L.) to the west end of tract (550 foot M.S.L.). This is a 90 foot change over 1,249 feet or almost one quarter mile. This site not completely cleared and has only the front buildings currently. The site abuts a county road standard two lane road (Kanis Road) as primary access. Most abutting lands are developed similarly with Kanis uses and long somewhat unused rear areas. Public Transportation None in this area C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: The Traffic Engineer recommends a 20 foot center isle. Do not park recreational vehicles in the rear lot. Room needed to accommodate truck turn -around. Dedicate Master Street Plan right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. Provide In -Lieu for Master Street Plan improvements for frontage. A grading permit is required prior to construction. E. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Outside service boundary Water: An acreage charge will apply. On site mains and hydrant plan needed. Arkla: OK AP&L: No response at this writing Southwestern Bell: Need easements Fire Department: Need 50 foot minimum radius at west end/RV parking County Planning: No comment F. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape The proposed four foot wide northern and southern buffers are both one foot short of the land use buffer requirement. However, areas set aside for landscaping meet with Landscape 2 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5838-A Ordinance requirements. Trees and shrubs will be required around the perimeter of the site. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscape areas from vehicular traffic. There are many unresolved issues attendant to this project as follows: • Note current office use - will there be resident manager. • Area devoted to landscaping - equal or less than code • Dimension office building, existing • Show Kanis right-of-way existing and Master Street Plan. • Abutting use or owners of residential property. • Roof material, metal, etc. also color • Turning radius between buildings. • Lighting plan, height, type • Clarify opaque fence, letter says shrubs. • Site fire hydrant or suppression system • Turning radius in RV area - limit on length. • will buildings be stepped on grade. • Signage should be indicated. • If a dumpster is proposed, where will it be placed. Planning Division: The site is located in the Ellis Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Transition. The previous zoning was POD and single Family (R-2) which is in conformance. The requested change expands the nonresidential use area and character. The resulting proposal is in conflict with the Plan. There has not been a change in the area to justify amendment of the Plan. G. ANALYSIS• At first review and each follow-up staff has added, issues we feel are significant to this plan review but are missing or there is no information to illustrate how they would work. These include closely spaced buildings, tight turning radii, absence of fire fighting system on site. There are a number of others listed in this report, but at this time staff feels there is insufficient time to remedy all these before the 18th of July public hearing. A deferral to rethink the plan is in order. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5838-A H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Deferral to the August subdivision agenda. Directed placement on Consent Agenda for deferral. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Mr. Frank Riggins was present for the application. He offered comments in support of the application. Planning and Public Works staff presented a lengthy list of design issues that perhaps the owner has not thought through. Some of these were noted as fire and safety issues and needed additional work. The Committee questioned Mr. Riggins about time and the possibility of deferral. After discussion of all the issues, the Committee suggested placement on Consent for deferral and bring it back next month. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present this item for discussion. The staff offered its recommendation which was this proposal be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996 meeting. Staff stated the reason for the deferral was that there were a sufficient number of problems at the Subdivision Committee level which precluded the completion of a review in time for the Planning Commission's hearing on this case. The Subdivision Committee directed that this item be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral. Without further discussion, the item was placed on the floor for a motion. A motion was made to add this item to the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996 meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-6051-A NAME: U.S. POSTAL FACILITY PD-C LOCATION: East off Chenal Parkway on unnamed street accessing Arkansas Systems Development DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Terry Moore White-Daters Engineering 320 Executive Court 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 223-3800 374-1666 AREA: 1.71 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-2, filed for PD-C PROPOSED USES: U.S. Postal Service Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 - Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This lot has no history in our records except as part of a larger lot reflected on the prior preliminary plat. The post office has attempted location on other property nearby and settled on this site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To construct a one-story building with parking, service dock, drive thru drop-off for mail and allied activity area. The building contains approximately 10,000 square feet and will house a single use. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site appears to be cleared and prepared for development. A preliminary plat revision on this agenda will provide street access over a new commercial street from Chenal. The neighborhood is a mix of zoning with most being vacant office and commercial. Land to the east has most recently been in agricultural use. There does not appear to be grade problems on the site. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6051-A Public Transportation None available as full time service. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS D. E. F. None at this writing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: ADPC&E permit, USACE permit, grading permit, development permit for special flood hazard area, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. To permit two drives for the post office may be possible if the requested waiver is taken in with the other lot access points determined. The post office drives shall be 25 feet from the property line. Common drive and spacings from intersections is requested. Recommend a plan revised and submitted prior to Planning Commission. Contact traffic engineer about length of mail drive thru drop-off. Will all of the abutting street be constructed prior to construction of this facility? UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements. Water: A water main will be required as well as a $300.00 per acre charge. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: No comment Fire Department: Fire hydrants required, show on plan. County Plannina: No comment, inside city ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements with the exception of the building landscape area which appears deficient. P" July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6051-A The Landscape Ordinance calls for a three foot wide landscape area between the public parking areas and building. Some flexibility with this requirement is allowed. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. The following site plan element require attention: • Signage, pole or building needs shown. • Site lighting is needed, show plan. • Fire hydrant should be indicated. • Dumpster location should be shown. • How may cars stacking at mail drop? • Show break between landscape area and sidewalks. • Rear buffer may be shallow, review ordinance requirement. • Building entry, pedestrian, should be shown. Planning Division: The site is located in the Chenal District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Office. The proposal is a commercial application. The request is in conflict with the Plan. There has not been a change in the area to justify an amendment to the Plan. G. ANALYSIS• Aside from the several design issues pointed out in staff comments and the location being within office designation on the plan, the proposal is acceptable. Staff can by working with the site designer resolve technical details. However, the Commission will need to consider the title or district designation proposed. It may be possible to simply retitle as a POD or PD-0 which will conform to plan and a post office is generally an office function with accessory service or delivery uses. Planning Division staff recommends a change to PD-0. The only issue remaining to resolve is the effect of two driveways from one lot less than three hundred feet wide. The preliminary plat will control access points and should be discussed with this issue. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6051-A H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: After detailed review of plan, plat and land use plan for the area, staff recommends approval of the project as a PD-O and supports two drives if the adjacent lot access points are delineated on the preliminary plat in a workable fashion acceptable to Public Works. BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The application was represented by Mr. Tim Daters. The Engineer of record and Mr. Terry Moore. The plat and post office plan were discussed generally as one item with the comments of staff involving both. The were no issues of consequence to resolve except the follow thru on the lot sizes for platting. A question was posed as to the stacking space for drop-off and whether the dock area would accommodate large delivery vehicles. Mr. Daters reported the dimensions shown are those desired by and used by the post office. There was a brief discussion of dumpster and landscape improvements. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present the application and its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, presented a brief overview of the PD-C application which was the current draft of the proposal meets the designing criteria. All elements that had been discussed at Subdivision Committee had been dealt with. The remaining issue, the number of driveways serving this site being two will be resolved by Board of Directors action at its meeting which will deal with the waiver of spacing requirements for the Arkansas Systems Preliminary Plat. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the application. A brief discussion of the application followed with some commentary by David Scherer, of Public Works. As a follow-up to the Public Works' requirement that the driveways be redesigned to be located at least 25 feet off the property lines. At the end of this discussion a motion was made to recommend to the City Board of Directors approval of this application as modified to meet staff recommendation. The vote on the motion was 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z-3459-C NAME: MABELVALE BUSINESS PARK LOCATION: I-30 at Baseline Road (west of Wal-Mart site) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Conservative Development White-Daters 2851 Lakewood Village Dr. 401 Victory Street N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 758-7745 374-1666 AREA: 2.9 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: Retail food and fuel PLANNING DISTRICT: #15 - Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: This tract is a part of a continuing development of a large tract that has mixed zoning, lot sizes and uses. Several buildings are complete on lots to the south. The overall plan proposed to develop a system of private and public street to serve the project. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To develop several small buildings on this tract with common access and parking relationships. The plan submitted offers little more than this statement indicates. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: A partially cleared site lying adjacent to Baseline Road and immediately west of Wal-Mart site. The site is zoned C-2 Commercial and is abutted by C-2 and C-3 zoning on all sides. The tract is visible to I-30 and frontage road as well as Baseline Road. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3459-C Public Transportation Served by bus Route No. 17, Mabelvale/Downtown through Wal-Mart site and along Baseline Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: None at this writing. D. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Public Works: E. F. The scale and detail of the submitted plan is unacceptable to evaluate plan properly. Please revise and resubmit. Entry drive from the east needs revisions. Consult with Traffic Engineer prior to Planning Commission. The drive adjacent to future building does not appear to be adequate in width. The east west private drive is named Mabelvale Plaza Drive. Provide an updated erosion control plan prior to construction. Baseline Road has volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. 1992 access road counts were 13,270 ADT. UTILITY COMMENTS/FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Sewer available for phases 1, 2 and 3 but 4 requires a main extension. Water: An acreage charge of $150.00 applies and other fees. AP&L: Easements required. Southwestern Bell: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Fire Department: Fire hydrants required, show plan. County Planning: No Comment Planning Division: No Comment ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape: Site plan of insufficient size to review 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3459-C • No comment at this time since the site plan provided is not at a workable scale and too much information is absent. G. ANALYSIS• Not offered due to condition of filing. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: That the item be deferred and submitted in complete form. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The Committee discussed this application at length. Mr. Daters, the project engineer of record, indicated that a larger scale more detailed plan exists but had not been provided to staff. He requested that the item not be pulled from the agenda but give him until the end of next week (July 5th) to complete the filing. The Committee pointed out that this was an unacceptable way to conduct a review but would offer Mr. Daters the opportunity. Staff pointed out that since no one has had a real review, Mr. Daters should obtain approvals from all the contact agencies or at least their comments by Friday the 5th. Staff will accept the revisions and feed them into the process with an update of this agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that Staff present its recommendation and the petition before the Commission. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief history of the application from Subdivision Committee to this time. He stated that on the occasion of Subdivision Committee, the application was totally deficient and the site plan was of such scale it could not be utilized for review. On that occasion, the engineer of record offered that a larger scale was available and had been viewed by most of the parties normally reviewing plats and plans. The engineer on the project offered to resolve any questions and have all reviews completed in time for the staff's agenda write-up and this was accomplished. Wood closed his remarks by saying there were only a couple of minor items dealing with landscaping that will be followed -up on the final plan but nothing that should hold-up the review and approval of the project. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3459-C The Chairman then placed the issue on the floor for discussion and asked if any commissioner had a question. Commissioner Adcock asked about the several eating establishments proposed as to the orientation of the buildings. Mr. Tim Daters, representing the developer, offered comments. He stated that the Exxon, Taco Bell building and the Pancake House share a common serviceway and those two buildings rear upon each other so that the face of the buildings are east -west. The buildings do have front facades on Baseline Road. Therefore, the buildings are designed and oriented so that the rears oppose each other and the building faces are toward the several streets and internal driveways. Commissioner Adcock then questioned putting a Taco Bell in a convenience store. Mr. Daters responded by saying that this is a new development type and there a number of them in the area at this time. Typically with locations of Taco Bell or Burger King or Subway Sandwich. Commissioner Adcock then addressed the question of accidents in the area and traffic flows and asked whether or not any review had been made of that circumstance. Mr. Daters responded by saying yes they have, plus, they have worked with the City Staff and the Highway Department in traffic circulation. He also discussed the fact that the Highway Department in the near future proposes to change the frontage road to one way. Mr. Daters pointed out that this project has no direct access onto Baseline Road from these several businesses but will take their primary access from the internal street or from the primary drive that runs back to Wal-Mart. Commissioner Adcock questioned Mr. Daters as to whether or not this convenience store operation would be 24 hour. His response was that he was not sure at this time, so he could not respond. Mr. Daters went on to respond to several other questions dealing with the type of activities, the drive thru and the type of services offered by the several restaurant facilities. To answer a concern of Commissioner Adcock, Mr. Daters stated that there would be a full detail review by staff when this developer comes in for the building permit and this would of course deal with the landscaping and buffering type of requirements. The Chairman then entertained a motion to approve the application. A vote on the motion produced a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 2 abstentions. A lengthy discussion then followed involving several of the commissioners and staff as to the appropriate action to be taken at this point since staff had identified the application as failing for lack of 6 affirmative votes. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3459-C Commissioner Lichty added clarification on his vote and his reason for not being in the room. He stated that he wanted this application to proceed and move on in as much as he felt there was no particular problem. Jim Lawson explained for the Commission and Commissioner Lichty that the bylaws do not specifically require that he be in the room and hear all of the discussion on the case prior to casting a vote. The discussion then moved to rescinding of the previous vote or expunging the motion and action in order to reintroduce the application for a second vote. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorneys Office, proceeded to review the bylaws of the Commission and offered direction. Her response was there was no specific bylaw instruction or direction as to how this might occur. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, said the Commission has simply dealt with this issue as it has arisen over the years. Commissioner Lichty stated that he had only inserted his commentary and voted abstaining because he was not in the room and did not have the opportunity to hear any possible objection to the application and he would appreciate someone voicing that concern if such an objection had been presented. Another lengthy discussion followed involving the Chairman, Staff and several commissioners as to the appropriate procedure to expunge the previous action. Commissioner Adcock closed out this conversation by responding to questions of others and identifying what her concerns were and basically her reason for abstaining. Her statement primarily dealt with her desire to not see this corner or this strip of Baseline developed in a way such as occurred in the area of Geyer Springs and Baseline. In response to this, Mr. Daters representing the application stated that the current city ordinances contain provisions that disallow the kinds of developments that had occurred earlier along Geyer Springs. Jim Lawson, of the Staff, inserted a statement that this was not a land use but a site plan review. A motion was then introduced by Commissioner Hawn for the Commission to expunge the previous vote on this application. Prior to a vote being taken, Jim Lawson asked that the Commission hold their vote while he and the City Attorney review the bylaws relative to procedure. In a follow-up discussion between Staff and the Commission, it was determined that expunging the record would require only a simply majority of those present. But to reconsider an item that had been finally decided by a vote, in this case, this application had been denied, then a unanimous vote of all of those present would be required in order to reconsider the item at the same meeting. 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3459-C After a brief discussion of this bylaw requirement, Commissioner Hawn reintroduced his motion in a somewhat different format. The motion then read that the application vote previously taken be expunged and that the Commission reconsider the application that has been presented. A vote on this motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. The Commission then held a brief discussion involving Commissioner Lichty's position relative to the vote. He determined that he was comfortable with voting on the issue and that we should proceed to a vote. A motion was made to approve the application. The vote produced 6 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 abstention (Pam Adcock) and 1 open position. 6 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: z-3699-H NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT: Trammell Crow - Conditional Use Permit Southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road Hinson Road Partnership I and II/Trammell Crow by Lewis Hunch PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for an apartment complex on this 0-3 zoned property. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow for 104 parking spaces which do not comply with ordinance design standards. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located at the southwest corner of Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads, just west of the Hinson Road/Rodney Parham Road intersection. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This general area contains a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses and zoning. The proposed site is currently vacant and heavily wooded. The property immediately west of the proposed site contains office buildings along Hinson Road and a nursing home (Pleasant Valley Living Center). The property at the southwest corner of the proposed development consists of single family residential structures. The property immediately south of the proposed site contains multifamily residential structures (Pleasant Wood Condos). The property immediately east of this site, along the west side of Hinson Loop Road, contains several existing commercial uses. A mixture of office and multifamily uses exists across Hinson Loop Road to the east. The property north of this site, across Hinson July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-3699-B Road, is made up of single family residential structures (Pleasant Valley neighborhood). Although Staff believes the use of the property as multifamily is compatible with the neighborhood, we do have concerns with the parking arrangement which the applicant is proposing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The proposed site will have a single access point from Hinson Loop Road. The 184 unit apartment complex requires 276 parking spaces. 254 parking spaces, which comply with ordinance design standards, are proposed. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an additional 104 stacking/tandem parking spaces (one behind each garage). These spaces do not comply with the required parking design as outlined in Section 36- 511, relating to maneuvering area. The total number of parking spaces proposed is 358. 4. Screening and Buffers: The street average full buffer width required along Hinson Road is 28 feet. The plan submitted averages approximately 23 feet. The street buffer along Hinson Loop Road exceeds ordinance requirements. The land use buffer of the proposed south-eastern parking lot drops below the full average width requirement along the eastern perimeter of 21 feet. Areas set aside for landscaping meet and exceed Landscape Ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. If dumpsters are to be used they must be located on the plan submitted, oriented away from streets and screened on three sides with an eight foot high wall or wood fence. 5. City Engineer Comments: Revise location of entry, contact Traffic Engineer. Site circulations requires improvement. Provide right- of-way for right -turn lane on Hinson needed right-of- way is 12 feet behind curb. Provide right-of-way and 1/2 street improvements for Hinson Loop. ADPC&E 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3699-B permit, stormwater detention plan, grading permit, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. 1992 Hinson volume is 12,310 ADT just west of intersection with Hinson Loop. Green Mountain's 1992 ADT is 10,940 just south of Hinson. The proposed apartment complex will generate 1800 to 2000 trips per day. 6. Utility Comments: Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer main extension required with easements. Capacity contribution fee required for project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Little Rock Water Works - A pro rata front footage charge of $15/foot applies along Hinson Loop Road. The on -site line will be private and check valves will be installed at each end if it is looped. Special requirements will apply if meters are installed off of this line. AP&L - A 15 foot easement is requested around the entire perimeter of the site. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 184-unit apartment development on this 0-3 zoned property at the southwest corner of Hinson Road and Hinson Loop Road. The site is located on the south side of Hinson Road just west of Rodney Parham Road. The proposed 9-acre apartment development will consist of ten (10) apartment buildings, a 2,500 square foot, one story office/clubhouse building, a pool area and associated driveways and parking. The ten (10) proposed apartment buildings will be built to one of three typical proposed sizes (one of two 16- unit building sizes or a 24-unit building). Of the ten (10) proposed apartment buildings, three (3) will be 24-unit buildings with the remaining being 16-unit buildings (184 total units). The applicant is also proposing a typical 46' building height. According to ordinance, the maximum building height in the 0-3 district is 45 feet. However, one (1) foot may be added to the height of the building for each foot that the building is set back from the required yard lines (to a maximum height of 60 feet). It appears that all of the proposed buildings are set back enough to justify the additional one (1) foot in 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3699-B height which is proposed. Because of the grade on this particular site, the garage side of the proposed buildings is 36 feet in height (three stories) above grade. As noted on the site plan, the three-story side of the proposed buildings will face the single-family residences to the east and the multifamily condo development to the south. The 184-unit apartment complex requires a minimum of 276 off-street parking spaces according to ordinance. The applicant has proposed 254 parking spaces which comply with the ordinance design standards (size and maneuvering area). The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 104 stacking/tandem parking spaces (one behind each garage). These spaces do not comply with the required parking design as outlined in Section 36-511, relating to maneuvering area. The total number of parking spaces proposed is 358 (254 which comply with ordinance design standards and 104 which do not comply). The proposed stacking or tandem parking design for an apartment complex is a new concept for the area and one which staff has not seen in the past (except for funeral home developments). Staff has concerns about how this stacking/tandem parking design will function and would like the applicant to present additional information (past apartment development experience, parking studies, etc.) to the Commission for consideration. A central trash compactor location is proposed at the north end of building 10. Curbside trash pick-up at each building will be provided by the development. Trash will be collected and placed in the compactor. The compactor will be replaced approximately every two weeks. Use of the central compactor will minimize the noise, leaking, odors and frequency of pick-ups normally associated with standard dumpster facilities. The compactor will be properly screened. The proposed sign location (as noted on the site plan) is at the corner of Hinson and Hinson Loop Roads. The sign will conform to the maximum 0-3 district standards of 64 square feet in area and 6 feet in height. Staff feels that the proposed use of the property as multifamily is compatible with the neighborhood, but there are concerns as to whether the proposed parking design will be sufficient to serve the proposed 184 units. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3699-B 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility Comments 4. Provide the additional 22 off-street parking spaces to meet the minimum number (276) as required by ordinance or obtain a variance from the Commission. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Robert Brown was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer, of Public works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. He discussed the Traffic Engineer concerns relating to the entry drive from Hinson Loop Road and the site vehicular circulations. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed parking and the variance needed. The proposed building height was also discussed. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Robert Brown and Lewis Bunch were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item, and added conditions 5 and 6 to the staff recommendation of approval, as follows: 5. Lighting is to be low-level and directed away from adjacent properties. 6. Placement of a temporary construction fence to protect buffer areas (prior to the start of clearing of the property). 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3699-B Staff also informed the Commission that Public Works has concerns regarding the location of the entry drive. David Scherer, of Public Works, addressed the Commission. He stated that Public Works has concerns regarding the location of the entry drive. He stated that the entry drive/entry point needs to be moved to the south to better accommodate the amount of traffic to and from this site. Robert Brown addressed the Commission in support of the application. He explained the parking variance request and the reasons for the proposed location of the entry drive. Lewis Bunch, of Trammell Crow, addressed the Commission in support of the application. He explained to the Commission that the entry drive design has worked well in the past with other similar developments by his company. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, asked Mr. Bunch to explain to the Commission why this development is different and how this entry drive design and parking design has worked with other similar developments by Trammell Crow. Mr. Bunch stated that he could make adjustments in the site plan (turning radius, etc.) to make traffic flow easier. Robert Brown stated that the Fire Department reviewed the site plan and had no problem with the turn radius as shown. Commissioner Brandon asked how many cars could be stacked on Hinson Loop to make a right turn into the complex. Mr. Brown stated that 6-7 cars could be stacked in this area. Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Bunch to address the issue of tandem parking. Mr. Bunch stated that there would be ample parking on the site to accommodate the number of units proposed. Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Bunch to provide demographics to support the parking design. Mr. Bunch stated that he would provide the 22 additional parking spaces to comply with city ordinance. David Scherer stated that Public Works reviews the internal circulation on proposed sites in order to protect the public. 6 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-3699-B Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Bunch to further explain the entry drive design and work with Public Works to resolve this issue. Mr. Bunch said he would compromise with the entry design but not the location. He stated that he would increase the turn radius and move parking spaces to make the entry work better. Laurie Amrine spoke on the application. She stated that the developer has worked with the neighborhood. She stated that she would like 80%+ of the required land use buffer, between the development and the neighborhood, to be left undisturbed with additional plantings. Mr. Brown stated that 80%+ of the buffer area would be left undisturbed. Commissioner Hawn asked Mr. Scherer if he was concerned about traffic back-up onto Hinson Loop Road. Mr. Scherer stated that this area was in compliance with City ordinance. Mr. Bunch stated that he would increase the turn radii (to 25 feet) and move some of the parking spaces in order to make the entry drive function more efficiently. Cindy Dawson, City Attorney's Office, asked that the conditions of approval be restated. Commissioner Putnam stated that the applicant agreed to move the back -out parking near the pool area, increase the turn radii to 25 feet, leave the entry drive location as shown on the site plan, add 22 parking spaces, and comply with items 1 thru 6 as recommended by staff. The applicant also agreed to leave 80%+ of the required buffer area, adjacent to Rainwood Cove, undisturbed, and provide additional plantings. Commissioner McCarthy asked if there would be a left-hand turn lane in Hinson Road. Mr. Scherer stated that there is a center turn lane existing in Hinson Road. A motion was made to approve the application with the conditions as noted by Commissioner Putnam. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 3 absent and 1 open position. 7 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-4175-F NAME: LOCATION: ERC Foundation - Conditional Use Permit 3000 Block of Aldersgate Road OWNER/APPLICANT: ERC Foundation, Inc./ James E. Hathaway, Jr. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 140-bed nursing home on this property which is currently zoned MF-12. A rezoning application (to MF-18) has been filed. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located at the 3000 Block of Aldersgate Road, south of the Good Shepherd Ecumenical Retirement Center. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed nursing home site is currently undeveloped and wooded. The properties to the north include Camp Aldersgate (zoned OS), the Good Shepherd Retirement Center (zoned MF-18/R-6) and vacant land (zoned MF-12). There is vacant land east of this proposed site which is zoned MF-12/OS and also vacant land to the west which is zoned MF-12. A proposed Hospice Development is to be located immediately south of this site, on property zoned POD. The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. on -Site Drives and Parking: A single access point is proposed from Aldersgate Road (when extended). The proposed 140-bed nursing home (Phase I and II) requires 140 parking spaces. There are 69 parking July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4175-F spaces on the proposed site plan. The applicant must add the 71 parking spaces to meet minimum ordinance requirement or request a variance and provide justification. There is ample space within this site to provide the additional required parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. A six fgot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings will be required to screen the business activity of this site from the residential properties to the east and west. Existing on -site natural dense vegetation can count toward fulfilling this requirement. 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide for a superelevated collector since street centerline is less than 450 foot horizontal radius. Future development area needs to take access from the planned drive or parking. The frontage would not permit two drives. Consult with the Traffic Engineer prior to Planning Commission concerning the entry drive configuration and signage. The shown future drive to turn -around should be 24 feet in minimum width. Construct collector to the limits of the property with a sidewalk on both sides. Alignment will be as approved through the preliminary plat process. Stormwater detention, ADPC&E permit, grading permit, and a sketch grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to construction. Platting of Master Street Plan right-of-way is required prior to construction permit. Street lights are required for this street and subdivision, coordinate their construction with street construction. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Little Rock Water Works - A front foot charge of $15/foot along the 12" water main applies in addition to normal connection charges. On -site fire protection should be reviewed by the Fire Department. Additional fire hydrants may be needed. RPZ backflow prevention required on all services. K July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4175-F Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer main extension required with easements. Capacity contribution fee required for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. Little Rock Fire Department - A 50 foot turn around radius is required for fire apparatus. An additional fire lane is required on the east side of the building for access to the south end of the structure. An additional fire hydrant may be needed at this location. Please identify the siamese connection location. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 140-bed nursing home on this property which is currently zoned MF-12. A rezoning application (to MF-18) has been filed and approved by the Planning Commission. The rezoning is pending before the Board of Directors (July 16, 1996). The proposed site will be located in the 3000 block of Aldersgate Road, which will be extended to this property. The single -story nursing home is proposed to be constructed in two (2) phases. Phase I will consist of an 80-bed, 28,233 square foot facility, 45 parking spaces with asphalt drives and an 816 square foot maintenance storage building. Phase II will include a 60-bed, 11,858 square foot addition and 24 additional parking spaces. According to the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance Section 36-502(b)(2)a., the minimum required off-street parking for a nursing home is one (1) space for each one (1) bed. The proposed 140-bed nursing home (Phase I and II combined) requires 140 off-street parking spaces. A minimum of 80 spaces are required with Phase I construction and a minimum of 60 spaces are required with Phase II construction. A total of 69 parking spaces are proposed (45 with Phase I and 24 with Phase II). The proposed 69 parking spaces are well below the minimum number as required by ordinance. There is adequate area within this site to provide the additional 71 required parking spaces. The applicant must provide additional parking spaces to meet the minimum ordinance requirements or request a variance and provide justification. The proposed nursing home is very similar to existing and proposed uses within this general area. The Good Shepherd Retirement Center is located just to the north 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4175-F of this proposed site with a proposed Hospice development to be located immediately to the south and the Our Way Living Center located to the southwest. With proper screening and buffering of the site from the multifamily residential properties located to the east and west, the proposed nursing home should prove to be compatible with the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility and Little Rock Fire Department Comments 4. The applicant must provide additional off-street parking spaces to meet the minimum of 140 as required by ordinance or request a parking variance and provide justification. 5. The property must be rezoned to MF-18. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Mike Watson, Alan Smith and Frank Riggins were present, representing the application. Staff presented the item along with Item 1, ERC Preliminary Plat. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments with the Committee. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review, also reviewed his comments with the Committee. There was a brief discussion regarding the required parking for the site. The applicant stated that a parking study would be conducted and presented in order to justify the reduced number of parking spaces as proposed. The applicant was made aware of the additional fire lane as required along the east side of the building by the Little Rock Fire Department. The applicant stated that he would work with the Fire Department. The applicant also stated that the proposed building would be one story in height. The applicant also stated that a 4 foot to 6 foot high, monument -type sign would be proposed. 4 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4175-F The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. STAFF UPDATE In a request for a parking variance, the applicant has submitted other city and state parking requirements for nursing homes as justification. The applicant states that, based on these state and city requirements as well as past nursing home projects, the number of parking spaces (69) proposed for this project is adequate. Please see the attached letter and supporting documents (Nursing Home Parking Regulations from the states of Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee and the City of Fort Smith) for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Frank Riggins was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval based on the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation Staff recommended approval of the parking variance based on the information presented by the applicant (parking study). Staff added a condition to the "Staff Recommendation" which reads as follows: 6. If the proposed number of parking spaces (69) becomes a problem (insufficient), then additional paved parking spaces will be provided by the applicant. Staff also informed the Commission that the property had been rezoned to MF-18 by the Board of Directors on July 16, 1996. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that if the decreased number of parking spaces becomes a problem, then the staff would inform the applicant and have them provide additional paved parking areas or bring the item back to the Commission. Commissioner Adcock asked what would happen if parking becomes a problem; what recourse would the City have. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicant would be required to provide the additional parking spaces as approved by the 5 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4175-F Commission or bring the application back to the Commission. That this would be an enforcement action. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission and stated that he agreed with the parking condition as noted by staff. Commissioner McCarthy asked at what point would the parking be considered a problem. Mr. Lawson stated that if a single complaint is received by staff, an investigation would be conducted to determine if additional parking would be required. A motion was made to approve the application and parking variance with the conditions noted in the "staff recommendation" along with the following condition added by staff: 6. If the proposed number of parking spaces (69) becomes a problem (insufficient), then additional paved parking areas would be provided by the applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. A William Stafford, Architect Architecture. Plarvtinq M TWA*m AvvM Rule B P.O. BOX 1f7B32 Fort &T fh, AR T2917-0632 FAX ((SMi 78M5 July 1,19% Allen Smith The Mehlburger Firm 201 South Izard Little Rode, AR 72203 Re: Ecumenical Care and Rehabilitation (ECR) Center, LLC Proposed 80-Bed Nursing Home Me Rode, Arkansas Dear Allen: At your request, I am sending some examples of parking requirements for nursing homes. These state and city requirements support my belief that the number of spaces that we have - proposed for this project will be sufficient. In my ten years' experience of specializing in the design of nursing homes, I have found that one (1) parking space per two (2) nursing home beds is adequate. The examples of parking requirements for nursing homes are as follows: State of Arkansas = one speoe per 6 beds. State of Taxes = one space per 4 beds. State of Tennessee = one space per b beds + one space for each day shift staff member and employee. City of Fort Smith = one space per 4 beds one space for each 2 employees at maximum shift. Taking the last two examples (as being the more stringent), the number of parking spaces required for this project would be computed as follows: 140 beds/5 = 28 spaces - 40 employees = N Spaces Total spaces required. 140 beds/4 = 35 vaces 40 employess/2 20 spaces 55 spaces Total spaces required, With the ECR site plan, we have proposed 45 parking spaces when the project has 80 beds. We have proposed 69 parking spaces when the project has 140 beds, Based on past projects, I feel that this number of parking spaces is'adequate. Also attached is a copy of details for the sign that will be used on this project Please call me at (501)783-5015 if you need additional information. Sincerely, William Stafford, Architect cc: File Rick Griffin Z'd NOI1ofkuswoo NIA-4I219 WHVT:LO 96. TO -inf LTC.400 411/84 - 420 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT /�r�.�a1"1�►'�� 421 - 445 STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND/OR ALTERATIONS 422 GENERAL 422.1 A "new institution' is one which .had ;plans approved by the Office of Long Tenn Care and began operation and/or construction or renovation of a building for the purpose of operating an institution on or after the adoption date of these regulations. Tho regulations and codes governing new Institu- tions apply if and when the institution proposes to begin operation in a building not previously and continuously used as an institution licensed under these regulations. 422.2 Additions to existing facilities shall Beet the standards for new construction. 422,3 The requirements outlined under section 400, General Standards for Existing Structures, also apply when applicable. 'S.a w.- 423 SITE LOCATION, INSPECTION, APPROVALS AND SUBSOIL INVESTIGATION ttimm + + 423.1 The building site shall afford good drainage and shall not be s ject to flooding, or be located near insect breeding areas, noise, or other nuisance producing locations, or hazardous locations, industrial developments, airports, railways. o r near penal or other objectionable institutions or near a cemetery. The site shall afford the safety of patients and not be subject to air pollution. 423.2 A site shall be adequate to accommodate roads and walks within the lot lines to at least the main entrance, ambulance entrance, and service entrance. All facility sites shall contain enough square footage to provide at least as much space for walks, drives, and lawn space as the square footage contained in the building. 423.3 The building site shall _be inspected and approved by the Division before construction is begun. 424 SUBMISSION OF PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS. AND ESTIMATES 424.1 When construction is contemplated either for new buildings, additions, or major alterations in excess of $100.000 (One -Hundred -Thousand Dollars), plans and specifications shall be submitted in duplicate, one (1) to the OLTC and one (1),to the` Plunbing Division of the Arkansas Department of Health, for review, along with a copy of the statement of approval from the Comprehensive Health Planning Agency. Final plan approval will be given by the OLTC. 424.2 Such plans and specifications should be prepared by a registered professional engineer or an architect licensed in the. State of Arkansas (Act 270 of 1441 as amended) and should be drawn to scale with the title and date shown thereon. The Division shall have a minimum of three (3) weeks to review E •d woiio KsHo9 NiAAI219 WtiST :L0 96. TO inn C LTC.400 4/1/84 400 PHYSIC& ENVIROMIENT r k'wR n 5`' 401 GENERA. STANDARDS FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES 402 GENERA. Every institution mist be maintained, managed, and equipped to provide ade- quate care,'safety, and treatment of each resident. 403 FACILITY GROUNDS AND PARKING All homes shall be provided with dust free drives and parking lots. . Parking areas shall be provided in a ratio of one (i) individual parking space fe r each five (b} licensed beds. 404 DOORS All exterior doors shall be effectively weather stripped. . Doors shall swing into rooms except closet, toilet, and exit doors. The doors to all rooms, toilets, baths, and closets shall be legibly marked with names or numbers, as appropriate to identify the area. . Exit doors shall not be locked in such a way -that a key is necessary to open the door from the inside of the building. A latch or other fasten- ing device on the door shall be provided with a knob, handle, panic bar or other simple type of releasing device, which is part of the door han- dle hardware, of which the method of operation is obvious even in dark- ness. 405 STANDARD PATIENT ROOMS, BATH, AND TOILET FACILITIES 405.1 Standard patient rooms shall not have more than five-(5) beds. 405.2 Single standard patient rooms shall measure at least 100 (one hundred) square feet. Multipatient rooms shall provide a minimum of 72 square feet per bed. Patient beds shall be located in roans and placed at least 3 feet apart in all directions and so located as to avoid contamination (respiratory droplets), drafts, excessive heat, or other discomfort to patients, to provide adequate room for nursing procedures and to minimize the transmission of disease. 405.3 Each standard patient room shall be equipped with or conveniently located near adequate toilet and bathing facilities; at least four (4) patients toilet facilities and three bathing units shall be provided for each 35 (thirty-five) beds. Each toilet facility shall be in a separate stall. Toilets shall be, equipped with handwashing facilities and toilet paper hangers. 405.4 Each standard patient room shall have handwashing facilities with both hot and cold running water, unless adequately provided in a nearby room.. b'd woiionNismoo NIAAi89 WHSt:2o 96. To -inr NURSING FACILITIES AND RELATED 1NSTMMONS 90.62 690.62. Loaadon and Site. (a) Site approval is normally required of the local health o icer, building department. and figs matshai haviirg jurisdiction. Any vvndiewns coneideted to be a Gina, safety, or health h=d wrll be grounds ibr disapproval of the site by the department. New facilities shall not be built in an and designated as a 600dplain of 100 year: or lets. (b) Site grades shall provide Ibr positive sarbee vaster draimp to that there will be no podding or staaft water on the desigmat d site. 11is does not apply to local govern ingot regWreaz:zts for engineered controlled run-off holding ponds, etc. (c) A new building (or addition) shall be set back at least 10 fen from the property lines accept as odterwise approved by the dgw=anL (d) Exit doors from tits building shall not open dit=4y onto a drive for vehmdu traffic, but shall be set back at least six fed from thc7edge of such drive: (measured it+om the end of ' the building wall in the can of a romsed door) to provost axidems due to lack of visual warning. (e) VVhiks shall be provided as t. quired from all exits and shall be of non -slip surfaces free of hazard:. Walla shall be at least 48 inches wide except as otherwise approved. Ramps should be used in lieu of steps where possible for the bandicapped and to 6cilitsd bed or whedgh* r+emaval is an cnxgpncy. (f) Outdoor activity, ricreadonal, and sitting spaces shall be provided and appropriately deftned, landscaped, and equipped. Some shaded and/or covered omide areas are needed. Such areas &ball be designed to acco=nodate residents in wheelchairs. (g) Each facility shall have parking space to satufy the needs of residents, employees, staff, and visitors. b the absence of a famul parking study, each facility shell provide 4or a ratio of at least one parking space for every four beds in the i'aoitity. This ratio may be reduced slightly in &nose eom wdent to public. parking faculties. Space shall be provided for emergency and delivery vehioles. No parking. space shall block or inhibit egress from the outside exit doors. Parking spaces and drives shall be at least 10 feet away from windows in bedrooms and dining and living areas. _ (h) Barriers shall be provided for resident Moiety from traffic or other site hazards by the use of appropriate methods such as femces, hedges, retaining walls, railings, or other land. scaping. Such barriers shall not inhibit the free emmrgency egress to a safe distance away+ from the building. (i) Open or enclosed courts with resident rooms& or living areas opening upon them shall not be less than 20 feet in the smallest dimension unless otherwise approved by the depart. med. Exceptions would be as follows. (1) Nonparallel wings forming an acute angle may have a maximum of two such windows each side less than 20 feet but not less than 10 feet. Texas Dept. of Human Services LSNF/ICF-MR 94-0 S •d woiiDnNiswoo NIjjI219 wu9Z :L0 96, Z0 nnf STANDARDS FOR NURSING HOMES -`ten nemms.,em +.-- CHAPTER 1200-8-4 (Rule 1200-4--6-.03, continued) (b) Tire codes In effect at the time of submittal of plants and specifications, as defined by rule 1200-8-6—.03 (1) above, shag be the codes to be used throughout the project. (c) Time building standards for nursing homes apply only to facilities constmeted. renovated, or first licensed as_a nursing home after the effective date of that rules and regulations previously in effect, Existing Building Section of 1988 Life Safety Code. 6.e. those codes and regulations in effect when the facility was constructed or last subject to major renovation. those in effect on July 1, 1981., or those set forth In the 1994 revision to these rules). When constructing an addition or making a major renovation, existing facilif shall comply with the current standards of this regulation as to the addi- tion or major renovation. (Major renovation means that if, within any twelve (12) month period, altautlons or repairs costing to exeas of fifty (30) percent of the then physical value of the bttiIdiag are made to an existing building, such building shag be made to conform to the requirements for new buildings). (d) Facilities, the construction of which commenced after July 1, 1970. shall be available and accessible to the physically handicapped and shall meet the standards set forth In T.C.A. 068--18-20+t as amended. (a) Facilitia shall moot the safety glazing materials requirements in T.C.A. 968-18-301. (f) When included in the project. sprinkler shop drawings shall be submitted and approved before installation. (3) Location. (a) Environment. l , Quiatneaa and sanitary features of the immediate environment and Accessibility by public transpor- tatlon shall be considered in locating a nursing home. 2. The site for a nursing home shall conform to all local zoning regulations in cities where zoning ordinances are in effect. The owner's architect shall verify that the facility is not located in a flood plain. 3. Nursing homes shall be served by good paved roads, which are kept passable to motor vehicles the year round. (b) Distance to Property Line. 1. No license shall be issued to an operator for a nursing home unless the home shall be looted twenty (20) or more feet from all property lines other than the street line. (c) Parking. 1. Each nursing home, applying for Intitial licensure after the effective date of these rules shall tiave parking space to satisfy the minimum needs of patients, staff, and visitors. In the Absence of a local ordinance or a formal parking study, each nursing home shall provide not less than one space for each day shift staff member and the employee plus one space for each five (5) patient beds. At least two (2) such spaces shall be readily accessible for use by handicapped per. sons. This ratio may be reduced in areas convenient to the public transportation system or to public parking facilities if proper justification is included and compliance with applicable local codes of zoning standards is achieved. Space shall be provided for emergency and delivery vehicles. (d) Multiple Purpose Building, March, 1992 (Revised) 610 9.d wii3nNiswoD NIdiRl9 w2T :io 96, TO -inf 1tN-2S-1996 LS:34 P.0. r+wa*s- vas Mon 7M fuW t! a F —i 2740 8" 27440. Mir parking i Listed below are secs which as included in this chapter. Each use has a spa dfia standard Which shalilm met. In oatain oases where a use ban no speairm standard debarmi in advance by these rogulslaons, the b114%g amcial shalt make a determination of need after review of the site plan. Un DWLLLINGS AND LODGINGS 1. 5Ukgjvh=i1y cad two f uxlp dwellings ....... 2. UUiti-fum y dwaliinp Owbedroom Cans....... ............. 7 o- or more bedroom units ............... 9. Group residential ana dfnp and , - - t�=es, dormitories. fraternities, sororides) .......... . 4. b2obdle home parks and sulavldcns.......... 5. Hotel or motels ............................. d. bdbitidtmilybcusingfarelderly douaingwhera more th= 90% of all units an acm4ded by per• sows 60 yam of age or older) ................. SERVICES L Amusement or enterh_&m __ estsbB*b_ 2. A=omabile amvlee gnash= .................. & Sacks or saving✓ and loan ................... 4. Barber shop ................................ 5. Bamty parlor ............................... e. Howling alley ............................... 7. Churches and nccessory structures ........... 8. cl, or lodges (Private, aaupraft ........... 9. dal home and mortuaries............... . 10. HcapiW and sanitoriums.................... 1L Nmuing, e9valesoent or zest home.......... . Space Requires* 2 spaces per living unit 1yl spaces per bmv unit 2 spaces per lfving Gait 1 space per 2 occupants at maximum building cap"* 2 spaces per unit or lot 1 spaw par room pies required spaces for res.. taarant and other commercial facilities plus s . space per S employers GIs space per dwelling unit with 1 bedroom; 1 sp= per dwelling unit with more than 1 bed - ram 1 per each 4 patrons Unaximum cspscito 1 per service bay' and i per each empployee 1 per 150 aq mm feet C.$A phis rainiz=m of 5 qae M spaces per drive &=%h window plus 1 per 8 employs lYa apaMs PW Chair plus 1 per e=h 2 employees 2 per operator station plus 1 per each 2 em- iloyses 5 spaces per laze plus required sped for other affiliated uses The required parltiag aha11 either be based upon one (1) p&Vmg space per each four (4) ants in the main sanctuary, or the required parking shall be based an the parking requirements for the use of the proposed accessory structure, whichever is greater I space Is&Ca per 50 square i�et of assembly area 1 spars for 8 awU in chapel plus 2 spaces per aaeh viewing room 1 space per 2 beds plus 1 per hospital staff and doctors and 1 per each S employees at mar per Theds plus 1 per each 2 employees aE azbnum shift 12, Medical or dmtd 9buics or aTm& ............ 6 spate per an or deg I& Offices, (buaiaaas or pro&miowl) ............. 7. per 250 square feet G.F.A. 8npp.ZPw 4 IGO TOTAL P.01 L'd NOI19nNiswoD wijji o WNLT:20 96, Z0 inf July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-4478-D NAME: Arkla Gas Company Amended - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 13625 Saddle Hill Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock Municipal Water Works/ Arkla Gas Company by Kenny W. Henderson PROPOSAL: An amended conditional use permit is requested to allow for the permanent placement of the existing 130 foot tall communications tower on this site. The tower was previously approved by the Planning Commission (July 9, 1985) on a temporary basis only. The property is zoned R-2 . ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The existing tower site is located just west of Saddle Hill Drive, between Pleasant Heights Dr. and Fox Chapel Court, adjacent to Phase I of the Pleasant Heights Subdivision. This subdivision is located just south of the Hillsborough Subdivision, which is located south off of Hinson Road, approximately 1/3 mile west of Pulaski Academy School. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The Arkla Gas tower site is within the existing Little Rock Water Works' water tank site. The surrounding properties are zoned R-2. The property to the south and west of this site is vacant and tree -covered, with a few single-family residences further west on Belle Point Drive. The property to the north and east contains new single-family residences. This existing Little Rock Water Works site is located on a hill, overlooking the property to the north and east. The site contains the existing 130 foot tall Arkla Gas tower, with a second 130 foot tall tower located adjacent to the site (immediately west). A 75 foot tall tower was approved by the Little Rock Planning July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-4478-D Commission for this site Commission also approved Rock Wastewater Utility) This proposal should not surrounding properties. for 11 years. on May 9, 1996. The Planning a 58 foot tall antenna (Little for this site on June 6, 1996. have an adverse effect on the This tower has been in place 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the property will be gained by utilizing an existing drive which runs west off of Saddle Hill Dr. to the Water Works site. Parking is provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: No Issues 6. Utility Comments: No Comments received 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant, Arkla Gas Company, is requesting an amended conditional use permit to allow for the permanent placement of the existing 130 foot tall communications tower which is located within the Water Works site at 13625 Saddle Hill Drive. The property is zoned R-2. This 130 foot tall tower is Arkla's only tower structure within the City of Little Rock. The tower range covers the entire City of Little Rock as well as areas just outside the city limits. The existing tower serves Arkla in several capacities. The tower provides voice radio and data communications to Arkla employees in the field. This allows the field employees to communicate with one another and also allows data to be sent directly to them in the field. The tower also serves as a telemetry repeater site. The tower sends information to the various metering sites throughout the City. K July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-D On August 6, 1985, the Little Rock City Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 14,924, granting Arkla a conditional use permit to construct and operate a radio tower on the property of the Little Rock Municipal Water Works located at 13625 Saddle Hill Drive in West Little Rock. The Ordinance was passed pursuant to the recommendation of the Little Rock Planning Commission, which recommended the issuance of a temporary conditional use permit. On July 9, 1985 the Little Rock Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit application to construct the Arkla Gas tower at 13625 Saddle Hill Dr., with the tower approved being on a temporary basis. The motion stated that the tower could remain on this site until a new water tank facility could be located to the west of this area and constructed. According to Arkla, at the time of the issuance of the permit, it was anticipated that the Water Works would be developing another site further up Saddle Hill and that Arkla's tower would be moved to that location after it was developed. The second site was subsequently not developed and Arkla, therefore, never moved its tower. However, the Water Works did construct another site further west on what is known as Highland Ridge. The Highland Ridge Water Works site is located approximately 1 1/2 miles to the northwest. A question has now arisen as to whether Arkla should be required to move its existing tower to that location. For the reasons stated herein, Arkla does not believe that it is in violation of the current conditional use permit. However, in order to clarify the situation and to avoid any further confusion, Arkla is requesting that the conditional use permit in question be amended to make it permanent rather than temporary. Given the fact that this is a multiple tower location, it is staff's opinion that the amendment to the conditional use permit is appropriate. The proposal to make the Arkla Gas tower permanent should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the amended conditional use permit application. r July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4478-D SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Walter St. John was present, representing the application. Staff presented the item with a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion regarding the history of the property and the Arkla Gas tower, relating to the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit application. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) 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 was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-5365-C NAME: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 12400 Interstate 30 OWNER/APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church by Tom Brock PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for a daycare/kindergarten within the existing church building on this R-2 zoned property. The daycare/kindergarten will have a maximum enrollment of 200 children. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church is located on the north side of Interstate 30, across from the Jacuzzi Company Plant. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The church property consists of approximately 165 acres, of which, only about 26 acres are buildable due to the remainder of the land being located in the floodplain. Less than 5 acres are developed. This developed property fronts directly onto the I-30 frontage road with the remaining 160± acres separating the church site from all adjoining property. The existing church building is located over 500 feet from the nearest property line. The proposed daycare/kindergarten will have no effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: No additional driveways or parking spaces are proposed. The number of parking spaces on the site currently exceeds ordinance standards. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5365-C 5. City Engineer Comments: No issues 6. Utility Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the location of a daycare and kindergarten within the existing Geyer Springs First Baptist Church building at 12400 Interstate 30, which is zoned R-2. The site currently consists of a large church building and parking lot. On September 6, 1994 the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for the temporary placement of four (4) portable classroom buildings, but these buildings have not yet been placed on the site. The proposed daycare/kindergarten will be located within the existing church building and no new buildings are being proposed for the site at this time. At present, the applicant is proposing to have an enrollment of 98 children. In the future, the entire church congregation will relocate to this facility from the Geyer Springs Road facility, and the daycare/ kindergarten will expand to a maximum enrollment of 200 children. The applicant is also proposing a 70 foot by 90 foot playground area to be located at the northwest corner of the building (as shown on -site plan). The playground will be located where one of the four future classrooms was approved to be placed on the site. If the portable classrooms are ever placed on the site, the location of this particular one will need to be altered slightly. with the church site being located in the middle of 165 acres and the existing church building being located over 500 feet from the nearest property line, the proposed daycare/kindergarten will have no effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application. E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z-5365-C SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item with a brief description of the proposal. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) 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 was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 3 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5473-A NAME: Grace Lutheran Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Northeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Grace Lutheran Church/ Richard W. Groh PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a church family life center on this R-2 zoned church property. A setback variance is requested for the proposed family life center along Hillcrest Avenue. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church is located at the northeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout Drive, across Hillcrest Avenue to the north from Mount St. Mary Academy. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The property immediately north and east of the proposed family life center is zoned R-2 and contains single- family residential structures. The church owns the house at 5101 North Lookout. The property to the south (across Hillcrest Avenue) consists of the Mount St. Mary Academy development. The property across Lookout Drive to the west contains a multifamily residential development and commercial uses along Kavanaugh Blvd. The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Two access points are proposed along Hillcrest Avenue. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A The proposed use will not require any additional parking, as the church's seating capacity will not change. There is an existing 17-space parking lot on the site. A 20f space parking area is proposed with the family life center development. This additional parking should help alleviate some of the on -street parking along Hillcrest Avenue. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping for the proposed vehicular parking and driveway meet with ordinance requirements. A six foot high opaque wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings will be required to screen this site from the residential properties to the east. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the size of the proposed expansion?an upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required where any existing deficiencies exist. 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide stormwater detention analysis and provide a sketch grading and drainage plan prior to construction. Dedicate right-of-way for Hillcrest Avenue to 30 feet from centerline and construct 1/2 street improvements from Kavanaugh to the east to 18 feet from centerline with a sidewalk. Current street is less than 27 feet in width. Mount St. Mary's is planning similar widening with future construction on the opposite side of Hillcrest. Together a 36 foot street would meet ordinance and be of great benefit to both facilities. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Little Rock Wastewater - Sewer service available, not adversely affected. If pump station is required for basement area of project, utility approval is required. Little Rock Fire Department - Additional fire hydrants may be required. E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A Southwestern Bell - Retain existing easements to maintain existing cables. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a family life center on the R-2 zoned Grace Lutheran Church church property at the northeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout Drive. The proposed family life center would be located immediately east of the existing church building, on the east side of the alley right-of-way. The applicant has also filed a right-of-way abandonment application for the alley (G-23-250). The proposed family life center will include a daycare center (presently housed in the existing church building), a kitchen, a church office area, and an area to be used for general church -related activities. The architectural design, exterior walls, windows, entrances, roof slopes and finishes will be of the same materials and design as the original church building. The applicant is also proposing to add 20+ parking spaces to the site. The majority of these spaces will be located on the east side of the proposed family life center, with a few spaces possibly being located on the north side of the building, between the building and the asphalt driveway. As noted earlier, the proposed building will not require any additional parking, but the additional parking proposed will help alleviate some of the on -street parking along Hillcrest Avenue. The applicant is also requesting a setback variance for the proposed building along Hillcrest Avenue. The required front -yard setback along Hillcrest Avenue is 25 feet. After right-of-way dedication for Hillcrest Avenue, the applicant is proposing a setback of 8.5 feet. This particular setback is requested because it is the church's wish to "line up" the proposed family life center with the existing church building. In addition to the alley right-of-way, the church property immediately east of the existing church building contains three (3) single-family residences and a portion of the abandoned Van Buren Street right- of-way. The church has offered the three (3) single- family residences to be moved to other areas of the Hillcrest neighborhood, or otherwise removed. On October 8, 1991, Grace Lutheran Church was approved for a conditional use permit to demolish the 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A residential structure at 5111 N. Lookout and convert the lot into a parking area to serve the church. As a condition of approval, the church agreed in writing to a five (5) year moratorium on any further demolition of their buildings. The moratorium included residences on property then owned by the church or purchased within the five year period. The church will not remove the three (3) single-family residences prior to October 8, 1996. Based on the uses and zoning in this general area, the proposed church family life center should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application and of the requested setback variance, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Screening and Buffers Comments 2. Compliance with the City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with the Utility and Fire Department Comments 4. The alley right-of-way must be abandoned. 5. None of the three single-family residences are to be removed from the site prior to October 8, 1996. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Julius Breckling and Dick Groh were present, representing the application. Mr. Breckling gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer (Public works) and Bob Brown (Site Plan Review) reviewed their comments with the Committee. There was a brief discussion of the proposed church expansion and the neighborhood in general. The requested setback variance and the moratorium on building demolition were discussed briefly. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. N July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5473-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Julius Breckling and Herman Bemberg were present, representing the application. There were three persons present to speak in opposition to the item. Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral of the item. Herman Bemberg, representing the church, gave a brief description of the proposal. Mr. Bemberg stated that he would request a deferral of the item. There was a brief discussion as to whether a deferral of the item would be appropriate. Jim Vandenberg, of the Hillcrest Residents Association, stated that he would also like for the item to be deferred in order for the church to work out additional details with the neighborhood. Drexel Jordan, 5014 Hillcrest Avenue, informed the Commission that he was "straddling the fence" regarding this item. He stated that he had concerns regarding the proposal. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer this item to the August 29, 1996 Subdivision Agenda. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. The applicant was directed by the Commission to meet with the neighborhood and attempt to resolve any outstanding issues. 5 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5737-A NAME: LOCATION• Alltel - Conditional Use Permit 7525 West Markham Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church/Alltel by Carrick H. Inabnett PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned church property. A height variance has been requested for the monopole tower. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively single family residential, zoned R-2. Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church has existed at this site for 20+ years. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower will not be compatible with the established single-family residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site can be gained by utilizing an existing drive from Mississippi or West Markham Street. Parking will be provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way for Markham Street. Master Street Plan calls for 80 feet or 40 feet from centerline. Mississippi requires 80 feet or 40 feet at intersection plus additional right-of-way as required for a right -turn lane. Thus 50 feet from centerline. 1992 traffic counts are 19,110 for Markham and 11,720 ADT for Mississippi in the area of this intersection. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communication monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned existing Faith Lutheran Church property. The proposed monopole tower will be located at the southeast corner of the existing church building, approximately 25 feet north of the residential property which fronts on Briarwood Drive. The base of the tower will be enclosed by a small masonry wall. Additionally, three (3) crosses will be placed on the monopole. These crosses will be approximately 12 feet in height and 5 feet wide and will be mounted at the top of the monopole, one at each corner of the triangular -shaped antenna structure. The crosses and the monopole will be painted white. The proposed equipment building will be located along the east side of the church building. The equipment building will be located within an open below -ground area which the church utilizes as a playground area. The equipment building will not be visible from West Markham Street or the adjacent residential properties. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the monopole tower. A height of 103 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A Alltel is proposing this monopole tower site in order to provide better service to its cellular customers in this area along West Markham Street. Alltel has expressed to Staff that none of the nearby commercial or industrial zoning (in any direction) and none of the nearby existing structures (the AT&T tower at Rushing Circle, the Southwestern Bell tower at Cantrell and Keightly Road) will suit their needs. Alltel has also informed staff that co -location on this proposed tower would be possible, but it would depend on the particular antenna request. The proposed monopole tower site will be located in the heart of an established single-family residential neighborhood. In staff's opinion, this proposed use will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit application. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower is not compatible with the surrounding established neighborhood. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Carrick Inabnett along with representatives from Alltel were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a general discussion relating to the proposed location of the monopole tower. The applicant stated that this particular site is needed based on the existing infrastructure of towers within the city. There was also brief discussion relating to possible co - location on this proposed tower and the proposed location of this tower within the church property. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Carrick Inabnett and Alissa Coffield were present, representing the application. There were several objectors present. q July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5737-A Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral of the item, based on the reduced number of commissioners present. Sandy Williams addressed the Commission. She stated that the neighborhood met with the applicants on July 7, 1996. She stated her concerns (and the neighborhood concerns) with the proposed monopole. Commissioner Putnam asked Mrs. Williams if the neighborhood would be interested in meeting with the applicants again. Mrs. Williams stated that they would not. Carrick Inabnett spoke on the item. He stated that because of the opposition to the proposal, he would like the application to be heard by the full Commission. He therefore requested that the item be deferred. Commissioner Adcock asked if Alltel would be willing to meet with the other cellular companies regarding co -location issues. Alissa Coffield stated that Alltel would agree to the meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 29, 1996 Subdivision meeting. The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-6162 NAME: LOCATION• Godwin - Conditional Use Permit 13301 Kanis Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Debbie Godwin PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 24 foot by 64 foot 1996 model multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the south side of Kanis Road, approximately 1/2 mile west of Point West Drive. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This general area along Kanis Road is comprised primarily of single family homes on large lots. The Cedar Ridge Addition is located further north across Kanis Road, with the various phases of the Point West Addition located further south and east of this site. This proposed manufactured home is to replace an older single-family structure which recently burned on this site. The proposed home will sit approximately 400 feet south of Kanis Road and should have no impact on adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing an existing concrete driveway from Kanis Road. There is an existing concrete parking area on the site which will serve the proposed manufactured home. There are no other parking issues. 4. Screening and Buffers: No comments July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6162 5. City Engineer Comments: No issues 6. Utility Comments: Little Rock Wastewater - sewer main extension required with easements. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 24 foot by 64 foot 1996 model multisectional manufactured home on this R-2 zoned property at 13301 Kanis Road. The proposed manufactured home will replace a single family home which recently burned on this site. The proposed home will be placed in the same spot where the older house was removed, which is approximately 400 feet off of Kanis Road. The properties surrounding this proposed home site are mostly wooded with a scattering of a single family structures in the area. With compliance with the Ordinance established minimum siting standards, the proposed multisectional manufactured home should be compatible with the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to compliance with the following Ordinance established 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. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6162 h. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DUNE 27, 1996) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item with a brief description of the proposal. After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) 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 was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 3 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 17 FILE NO.: Z-6163 NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• Rex Playground Equipment - Conditional Use Permit 7311 Kanis Road Pamela Brown Courtney/ Mike Pacheco PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for two (2) areas of outdoor display for the existing sales office at 7311 Kanis Road. The property is zoned C-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the south side of Kanis Road, approximately 3/4 mile west of University Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: There is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses and zoning in this general area. The variety of uses range from retail commercial to heavy industrial. Other commercial uses in this general area which utilize outdoor display/storage include the equipment rental business located immediately west of this site and the U-Haul dealership located across Kanis Road to the northwest. The proposed outdoor display should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing an existing drive from Kanis Road. The required parking (2 spaces) for this commercial building is provided within the fenced area on the south side of the building. The proposed outdoor display area will not effect the required parking. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6163 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: Right-of-way required for Kanis Road is 45 feet from centerline. Confirm dedication meets Master Street Plan. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for two (2) areas of outdoor display for the existing sales office at 7311 Kanis Road. The property is zoned C-3, which does not allow open outdoor display of merchandise. Rex Playground Equipment currently maintains a sales office within the 26 foot by 26 foot (676 square feet) building on this site. The flat -roofed building is located very close to Kanis Road and has a fenced area behind it. It is the applicant's desire to have a -hands-on- display of some of the company's playground equipment. The small building size makes it impossible to have an indoor display area. Therefore, the applicant is proposing two (2) areas of outdoor display. The first is a 30 foot by 30 foot area located within the fenced area at the rear of the building. This area will be utilized for the display of one large piece of playground equipment and possibly some smaller pieces. The second area of outdoor display would be located on the roof of the building. This area would be used to display one smaller piece of playground equipment - a swingset and slide combination. This piece of equipment would be properly anchored to the roof. The applicant does not intend to mount any type of sign or advertisement (price, etc.) to the roof -top display. According to the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance, the definition of a "sign" is as follows: Sign means any device, structure, fixture or placard using graphics, symbols, and/or written copy designed specifically for the purpose of 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6163 advertising or identifying any establishment, product, goods or services. And the definition of a "roof sign" is as follows: Roof sign means any sign erected over or on the roof of a building. It is staff's opinion that the roof -top display is proposed for the purpose of identifying the building and product, and therefore qualifies as a roof sign. According to Ordinance Section 36-543(7), roof signs or any sign that is not mounted on a vertical surface are prohibited in all zoning districts within the City of Little Rock. Approving the roof -top display/sign would establish a precedent which the staff wishes not to set. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the roof -top display area. Staff recommends approval of the 30 foot by 30 foot outdoor display area within the fenced area south of the existing building, subject to compliance with the City Engineer Comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Mike Pacheco was present, representing the application. Staff presented the item with a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposal and the surrounding uses. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Mike Pacheco was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval as noted in the "Staff Recommendation" (no display on the roof of the building). Staff informed the Commission that the staff's opinion was that the roof -top display qualified as a sign and was strictly prohibited by the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6163 Mike Pacheco spoke in support of the application. He referenced other roof top signs (River Market) in the City. Commissioner Putnam asked Cindy Dawson to define "sign". Mrs. Dawson referenced the definition in the agenda staff analysis. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the river market sign was an ordinance passed by the Board of Directors and the airplane on the roof of Diego's on Rebsamen Park Road was approved as an architectural feature of the building. Commissioner Brandon asked if there was room to display in front of the building. Mr. Pacheco stated that there was not. Mr. Lawson stated that Mr. Pacheco could take his sign request to the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made to approve the application subject to there being no outside display or sign on the roof of the building (as recommended by staff). The motion was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 18 Z-6161 Owner: Nikitia Hunter Applicant: Nikitia Hunter Location: 3205 Asher Avenue Request: Rezone from R-3 to C-1 Purpose: Convert existing structure into a beauty shop Size: .5± acres Existing Use: vacant, single family residential structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single family residence, vacant lots and dry cleaners; zoned C-3 and Word of Outreach campus; zoned R-3 and R-4 South - Single Family residences; zoned R-3 East - vacant lot; zoned R-3 West - Single Family homes, zoned R-3 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Asher Avenue is a minor arterial street with a reduced right-of-way of 70 feet. Dedicate right-of-way to 35 feet from centerline. With construction on -site, construct half street improvements to Master Street Plan standards, including sidewalk. Provide paved on -site parking to accommodate proposed use. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is in the I-630 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The proposal is in conflict with the Plan. There has not been a change in the area to justify an amendment to the Plan. In fact, changes in the area (the church school across Asher) have made the area more single family friendly. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone this .5± acre tract from "R-3" Single Family to "C-1" July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 Z-6161 (Cont.) Neighborhood Commercial. The property contains a small, frame residential structure and an accessory building. The applicant proposes to convert the residence into a beauty shop. The property is located on the northern edge of a small pocket of residential homes located south of Asher Avenue, north of Roosevelt Road and west of Roselawn Cemetery. All properties to the east, west and south are zoned R-3. Several of these R-3 zoned properties are vacant but many contain single family residences. A small area of C-3 zoning is located across Asher Avenue to the north. Only one lot is occupied by a business, a dry cleaners. The remainder of these C-3 zoned properties are vacant or, in one case, contain a single family home. The Word of Outreach church and campus occupies several R-3, R-4 and R-5 zoned properties to the west and northwest. The C-1 request is in Plan which recommends have been no changes commercial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION conflict with the adopted Land Use single family for the site. There in the area to justify a change to Staff recommends denial of the requested C-1 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The applicant, Nikitia Hunter, was present. There were no objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Mr. Carney distributed copies of the Land Use Plan for the area and discussed the relationship of the property to the plan. He explained that the plan recommended residential for the site. Ms. Hunter addressed the Board in support of her application. She stated that the beauty shop would have 5 booths, employing herself and 4 other beauticians. Ms. Hunter discussed other non-residential uses in the area and pointed out that one of the remaining residences in the same block was owned by her mother, who was present in support of the item. Commissioner Putnam asked staff if a PCD would be acceptable. Mr. Carney responded that a PCD was still commercial zoning, which does not conform to the Plan. E July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 z-6161 (Con Commissioner Adcock asked when the Plan was last reviewed. Mr. Carney responded that the Plan was reviewed in response to this zoning application. He stated that the Plan correctly reflected uses in the area. He described those uses in relationship to the Plan. In response to a question from Commissioner McCarthy, Ms. Hunter stated that there were several vacant lots and a vacant house located near her property. Commissioner Putnam asked if the Plan should be amended, if the Commission were to approve the rezoning. Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded that the Plan would need to be changed to support the requested C-1 zoning. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, commented that the Commission could vote to amend the Plan first. Commissioner Hawn stated that he felt the proposed beauty shop would not harm the neighborhood and, in fact, might provide a service to the neighborhood's residents. A discussion then followed about the possibility of converting the application to a PCD. Commissioner Hawn stated that the item needed to be deferred to address the Land Use Plan, rather than rezone the property and amend the Plan at the same meeting. Commissioner Putnam discussed the deteriorating condition of the neighborhood and stated that he felt the rezoning would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner McCarthy asked why staff did not recommend changing the Plan. Mr. Lawson responded that staff reviewed the Plan in response to the zoning request and determined that there was no immediate need to change the Plan. A motion was made to direct the staff to conduct a further review of the plan. The motion was seconded. In response to a question from Commissioner Putnam, Ms. Hunter stated that she agreed to a two week deferral. Mr. Lawson noted that staff could very well return in two weeks with the same opinion regarding the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Lichty asked why a conditional use permit was not appropriate for this type of use. Mr. Carney stated that a beauty shop was not a permitted conditional use in the R-3 district. 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 Z-6161 (Con A vote was taken on the motion directing staff to review the Plan. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. A motion was made to defer the rezoning request to the August 1, 1996 Commission meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 4 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 19 FILE NO.: Z-6164 Name: Location: Centers for Youth and Families Special Use Permit 8420 Kanis Road Owner/Applicant: Mrs. W. H. Southerland, Owner; Centers for Youth and Families, applicant Proposal: A special use permit is requested to allow for the use of this R-2 zoned property for a family care facility. STAFF ANALYSIS The Centers for Youth and Families requests a special use permit to allow for the use of the "R-2" zoned, Single Family residential structure at 8420 Kanis Road as a family care facility. CYF proposes to use the property to house up to five unrelated youth who will be participants in a "transitional living program" funded by a contract with the Division of Children and Family Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services. At least one staff member will be on duty at all times (24 hours per day/7 days per week) to supervise youth and program activities at the site. The program is described in more detail in the attached narrative. The Ordinance defines a family care facility as "a facility which provides resident service in a family -like environment to six or fewer individuals and not more than two staff personnel. These individuals require a minimal level of supervision and are provided service and supervision in accordance with their individual needs." Family Care Facilities require approval through a special use permit in the "R-2" District. Section 36-54(e)(2) of the Code of Ordinances establishes the site and location criteria for family care facilities. They are as follows: a. This use may be located only in a single-family dwelling. b. Medical or counseling needs must be provided off -site. C. No physical changes in the residence are permitted which would provide other than sleeping accommodations. July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6164 d. Drives and parking shall not exceed that required by ordinance for a single family residence. e. This use shall be permitted to run with the title to the land and be transferable. f. The number and spacing of existing similar facilities in the neighborhood. g. Existing zoning and land use patterns. h. Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. i. Provision for readily accessible public or quasi -public transportation. Section 36-54(f) of the Code of Ordinances establishes separation/spacing requirements for family care facilities to be determined by the Planning Commission so as not to adversely impact the surrounding properties and neighborhood. Issues that the Planning Commission will consider during its review include: (1) The total number of similar facilities and their spacing within the neighborhood. (2) Existing zoning and land use patterns. (3) Area wide availability of facilities providing like services. (4) Provision for readily accessible public or quasi -public transportation. The proposed use is located in a one-story, brick and frame single family dwelling. Other programs of CYF such as the Adolescent Day Treatment Program, Medication Clinic, Nursing Services and the Elizabeth Mitchell Adolescent Center will be utilized by residents of the home, when needed. No physical changes will be made to the residence or the property. It will retain its single family residential appearance. There are no similar facilities in the area. The property is located at the eastern edge of a mixed use area with zoning ranging from 0-3 to C-3 and C-4. A small R-2 zoned single family neighborhood is adjacent to the north. A large, wooded area of R-2 zoned property extends to the east of this site, on both sides of Ranis Road. The mixed use area extending to the west contains a variety of uses including a veterinary clinic, a plumbing supply 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-6164 company and a variety of other commercial uses. The large area of C-3 zoned property across Ranis Road is undeveloped. The site is located on a city bus route, providing access to public transportation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes this is an appropriate location for the proposed use and recommends approval of the special use permit for a family care facility. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the abstract company had provided incorrect information, thus the notices were sent to the wrong persons. Staff stated that the item needed to be deferred to the August 1, 1996 Commission meeting and that the applicant was sending corrected notices. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 1, 1996 meeting. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 open position. 3 CYF TRANSITIONAL LIVING PROGRAM Centers for Youth and Families/Youth Services proposes to create a transitional living house to be located at 8420 Kanis Road. This program will be funded by the Division of Children and Family Services, Arkansas Department of Human Services. This home will house a maximum of five residents. The program will recruit and train staff which meet Arkansas licensure requirements of their specific discipline. A behavioral level system will be implemented with in -put from the treatment team, Youth Services administration, legal counsel for Centers for Youth and Families, and TEL residents. Policies and procedures which meet requirements of Arkansas Licensure have been developed and will be implemented. A Risk Assessment process has been developed which is used as part of the admission screening process and will be helpful in predicting appropriate candidates for a community -based transitional living arrangement. Program evaluation has been developed which will meet the standards for Quality Assessment and Improvement in accordance with guidelines established by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). A Level of Comfort Questionnaire, developed specifically for the program will be completed by the residents upon admission and quarterly thereafter as another measure of resident progress. Additionally, treatment goals outlined in the Master Treatment Plan and the Treatment Plan Reviews will be monitored to determine resident progress and program effectiveness. The residents will participate in educational, vocational, occupational activities, attend religious services (if they choose), participate in community service activities, psychosocial counselling, both individual sessions and group meetings, and participate in Life Skills Training group meetings. With appropriate approvals, they visit with family members, friends, and significant others both at the residence and away from the residence. Emergency procedures have been developed, in -serviced, and implemented for psychiatric, emergency medical, and non -emergency medical issues. Other programs of Centers for Youth and Families such as the Adolescent Day Treatment Program, Medication Clinic, Nursing Services, and the Elizabeth Mitchell Adolescent Center will be utilized by residents of the program, when indicated. Residents will be referred to an array of community -based services outside Centers' facilities. Residents will be taught to manage their needs as an independent member of the community and have learned to access such areas as healthcare, recreational facilities, educational facilities, occupational sites, etc. independently. This staffing pattern will provide for at least one staff member to be on duty at all times (24 hours per day/7 days per week) to supervise youth and program activities at that site. All staff win be licensed and/or certified by the State of Arkansas licensing division responsible for their specific discipline. All staff will be employees of Centers for Youth and Families and selected by the Program Manager and Youth Services Administrator. A clinical and management on -call system will be in place to provide 24 hour/7 day coverage. July 18, 1996 ITEM NO.: 20 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NAME: Land Use Plan Definition Change REQUEST: Modify the definition for Suburban Office SOURCE: Planning Commission - Staff STAFF REPORT: At the request of the Commission, the Plans Committee and Staff reviewed the definition for Suburban Office (SO). The Committee, with Staff assistance, attempted to better define "SO" without writing a special ordinance. The definition is for the Land Use Plan, which the Zoning, Landscape etc. Ordinances will implement. There will be two types of Suburban Office, a campus on a large site or a single building on a small site. Either type is to be well landscaped (beyond average) and designed with the site in mind. Attention should also be paid to impacts on adjacent or near by residential areas. The revised wording was agree to by the Committee after two meetings on the issue. The current definition for Suburban Office is: "The suburban office category provides for development of professional office parks." The new definition would be: "The Suburban Office category provides for the development of large office complexes (over 10 acres) within a park like setting with increased setbacks and landscaping encouraged. Office Parks will have a campus design with buildings ranging in elevation, not more than 5 stories. For smaller areas (10 areas or less), the office buildings will be low rise (no more than 2 stories) with extensive landscaping including trees, and the structure will easily blend into a residential setting. Either sized area shall encourage: 1) access to pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems through the design and siting of the buildings and their entrances; and 2) extensive landscaping, distributed throughout the site using methods optimizing the existing natural features and trees to produce a composition which is ecologically user friendly. A Planned Unit Development is recommended." August 1, 1996 ITEM NO • 20 (Cont.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to August 1, 1996. By unanimous vote 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position, the item was deferred. 2 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO • 21 FILE NO.: G-23-250 Name Location• Owner/Applicant: Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment - Block 1, Hillcrest Addition Northeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and North Lookout Drive Grace Lutheran Church/ Richard W. Groh Recruest: To abandon the 20 foot wide alley right-of-way located within Block 1, Hillcrest Addition to the City of Little Rock. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way: The north -south portion of the alley is currently being used to access the church property. The majority of the east -west portion of the alley is undeveloped and currently not being used. Once abandoned, the alley will serve as a driveway for the church property. There is no other public need for the alley right-of- way. 2. Master Street Plan: The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets: Public Works is requiring right-of-way dedication (30 feet from centerline) for Hillcrest Avenue with construction of the proposed church family life center. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain: The north -south portion of the to access the church property. east -west portion is paved with undeveloped and below grade. 5. Development Potential: alley is paved and used The west end of the the east end being Once abandoned, the area of the alley will be incorporated into the proposed new Grace Lutheran July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-250 Church's family life center development and utilized as a driveway. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect: Grace Lutheran Church owns all of the lots which abut the alley except one. All involved property owners have approved the abandonment. The alley is currently only used by the church for access and its abandonment will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position: All abutting property owners have approved the abandonment. The Hillcrest Residents Association and the Heights Neighborhood Association have been notified of this issue. No neighborhood position has been voiced. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities: The area of the abandoned alley right-of-way is to be used as a driveway and parking to serve the church property and will be retained as a utility easement for Southwestern Bell to maintain existing and future cables. Once Southwestern Bell no longer needs the utility easement, the church will apply for a utility easement abandonment. 9. Reversionary Rights: All reversionary rights extend to Grace Lutheran Church and Evelyn Callahan. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues: Abandoning the alley right-of-way will allow for the development of the Grace Lutheran Church family life center and parking lot. The alley is to be used as a driveway and parking. This alley right-of-way abandonment will not effect the public's welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this alley right-of-way subject to the area of the abandoned right-of- way being retained as a utility easement. 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-250 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Julius Breckling and Dick Groh were present, representing the application. Staff presented the item and gave a brief description of the proposal. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) 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 was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. 3 July 18, 1996 ITEM NO 22 FILE NO.: Z-4411-B OTHER MATTERS RECONSIDERATIO 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 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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B 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/RE UUEST: 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 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 2 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 22 (Continued) FILE NO • Z-4411-B 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/DESIG 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 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 3 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B E. F. 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. ANALYSIS• Public Works has indicated that no widening of Highway 10 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 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 and, not only is the proposed the land use plan, but it is than "neighborhood" oriented. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: community level development, development in conflict with "community" oriented rather is of 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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 22 (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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 22 (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 6 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: _22 (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 0 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (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 PCD's 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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-8 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 Schickle 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 Schickle PCD. thatthey 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 bringing 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 until the other convenience store immediately to the west is removed staff would approve. 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 Mr. Jones to 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 simply not be operated as a convenience store. 10 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (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. Qickle is simply saying that if he does not get around to getting the shopping center constructed at the same vI 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 overAan 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. 4.1G.Vcw( Commissioner Adcock then obtainedtfor the 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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (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 interpretation as to 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. He specifically 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 Schickles' and not his. Mr. Jones stated that his interpretation of it was that 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 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (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 David Jones, if the use of this EZ Mart building is going to put to a use; 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. Schickle. He stated that what we are really dealing with in this instance is something that revolves around Mr. Schickle and his project. He stated that Coulson's understanding with Mr. Schickle 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. Schickle 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. 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 access points to serve the Coulson site as well as the shopping center, with Mr. 13 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B 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 access 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 convenience 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 it is going to require a Legal Ad in a 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 during the two weeks Mr. Jones could get with him and they could 14 July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 22 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-4411-B 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 where 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. This produced a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, 1 open position. 15 -10 w N 0 111111 11■■ Ommm1 odom mmommmmmov©smummmimaumon l� smocommoom ommu!]mm!]!]mum A■uu■■mo■som o■o■■■Enum u amomommmum o■uou■uvuffioo m■mommuoo■o■ oi000mi�ovmom ,o© m■ommm my s■000■m©vmoo ■■■■■ommmm■■ mii�oo®moomam mmemo■■o0■©m Imoomom■ommom ©■©©©■■umman mmonammomma ■■■■■■MEMM■ ■ ■■■■■mm■■mom ©■mmummummum momo 7■moomme ■■■■■■■1■■►l■■ (Rmommomm■■um ■■anum io■■©v mommommommum loommommon■►�gammom►■oo immommmmumilms gmemommasuvo 111111111111 z H F m z w w 4 z U z H F m z w w 4 z U July 18, 1996 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.