Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 29 1994subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 29, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the October 18, 1994 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Diane Chachere, Chairperson Suzanne McCarthy Emmett Willis, Jr. Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Doyle Daniel B. J. Wyrick Joe Selz Brad Walker Mizan Rahman Ron Woods Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA NOVEMBER 29, 1994 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Pro -Life Center -- Site Plan Review (Z-5862) B. Mid-America Center -- Amended Short -Form PRD (Z -4985-C) II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. The Villages of Wellington, Phase 2, -- Preliminary Plat (5-1042) 2. The Villages of Wellington, Phase 3, -- Preliminary Plat (5-1042-A) 3. Tom Major Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1043) 3a. Chenal Valley, Tract 13 -- Prelimary Plat (5 -867 -PP) 3b. The Ranch, Tract MF -- Preliminary Plat (5-285-5) 4. Pleasant Ridge Square -- Preliminary Plat (5-50-G) III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: 5. Village at Foxcroft Woods -- Short -Form PRD (Z -3510-A) 6. Comfort Inn Hotel -- Short -Form PCD (Z -3812-C) 7. Parkway Village -- Amended Long -Form PRD (Z -3862-C) 8. Gaines St. and W. 24th. St. -- Short -Form PRD (Z -4135-A) 9. Pleasant Ridge Square -- Long -Form PCD (Z -4411-A) 10. Coulson Oil, Highway 10 -- Short -Form PCD (Z -4411-B) 11. Markham Plaza Shopping Center -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -4422-B) 12. Kidsport -- Short -Form POD (Z-5907) 13. Worthen Bank Branch, Chenal Parkway -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -4933-C) Planning Commission Agenda, Page 2 V. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 14. Chenal Apartments -- Site Plan Review (5-867-QQ) 15. Riverdale Mini -Storage -- Site Plan Review (5-1041) 16. Saddle Creek Apartments -- Site Plan Review (5-285-T) VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 17. Otter Creek Assembly of God -- CUP (Z -3987-A) 18. Chenal Car Wash -- CUP (Z -4423-B) 19. Premium Pet Products -- CUP (Z -5524-C) 20. Mainard Accessory Dwelling -- CUP (Z-5900) 21. Victory Fellowship Church -- CUP (Z-5901) 22. Cellular One, Adams Field Cell Site -- CUP (Z-5902) 23. Dunn Accessory Dwelling -- CUP (Z-5903) 24. Kilpatrick Manufactured Home -- CUP (Z-5904) 25. Holy Souls Day Care Center -- CUP (Z-5905) 26. Alltel Cellular, Southedge Dr. Site -- CUP (Z-5906) 27. Sears Accessory Dwelling -- CUP (Z-5909) VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS: 28. Unnamed Street Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-222) 29. Rock Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-223) 30. Block 36, Original City of Little Rock -- Alley Abandonment (G-23-224) VII. STREET NAME CHANGE: 31. Adour Drive -- Street Name Change (G-25-168) Planning Commission Agenda, Page 3 VIII. REZONING• 32. Highway 10 and Southridge Dr. -- Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3 (Z -1716-D) IX. OTHER MATTERS: 33. Revocation of McCrary -- Short -Form PRD (Z-5108) November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-5862 NAME: PRO-LIFE CENTER -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: 1515 S. University Ave. DEVELOPER: Rev. Thomas W. Keller 1321 S. Van Buren St. Little Rock, AR 72204 666-5073 AREA: 0.6 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial Amusement PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 18 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of the 0.6 acre site for a "Pro -Life Center", consisting of a building containing a meeting room, an office, a racquetball gym, and rest rooms. Parking for 12 vehicles is provided, with access to be taken from Hendrix St. The off -premises outdoor advertising sign located on the property is to be removed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is sought for a site plan to include construction of a single 1,763 square foot building on the site, with a parking lot for 12 vehicles, and access to the parking lot to be from Hendrix St. The site plan review request was mandated by the court order which rezoned the property to C-3. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped, except for an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the property. University Ave. forms the west boundary of the site; Hendrix St. lies at the northwest corner of the tract. The east 85 feet of the property is within a federally designated floodway (or, an area east of a line 100 feet from the November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862 centerline of a 30 foot wide drainage right-of-way). The floodplain extends to the west an additional 25 feet. To the south is a commercially developed tract, and is used for medical offices. The site is zoned C-3, with C-3 property to the north (beyond the Hendrix St. cul-de-sac) and south and across University Ave. To the northeast along Hendrix St. and directly to the east is R-2 property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the site plan must be revised to provide access to the site from University, not from Hendrix. Access to or from Hendrix will not be permitted. The issue of the parking lot and drainage swale in the floodway must be addressed. All requirements made under the building permit response are applicable, including: 1) dedication of the right-of-way for University Ave. expansion as required by the Master Street Plan; 2) the submission of a complete grading plan for the site; 3) elevating all building improvements located in the floodplain to a minimum floor elevation of 313.0 feet. Water Works reports that the Fire Department needs to evaluate the fire protection for this project. Access off University and/or an additional fire hydrant may be required. The applicant needs to contact Water Works for the meter size and location. An acreage fee of $150 per acre applies This charge is in addition to the normal connection fee. Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that there will be no adverse effect on the system. Arkansas Power & Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department commented that the entrance drive must have a minimum width of 20 feet. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 6' high opaque screen is required to screen the site form F November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862 the residential properties to the east and northeast. The screen may be a wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or be dense evergreen planting. The location of fencing and plantings must be verified with Public works to avoid restricting the flow of stormwater. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Public works comment concerning the requirement for dedication of additional right-of-way along University Ave. will necessitate relocating the building and parking area. The Master Street Plan designates University Ave. as a principal arterial. Principal arterials are to have a 110 foot right-of-way. The development of the subject site will require dedication of right-of-way to provide one-half of the 110 foot requirement, or 55 feet. Presently, 45 feet has been dedicated on the east side of the University Ave. centerline. Therefore, an additional 10 feet dedication is required. This will move the building line further to the east, requiring the building and parking lot to be relocated. with the floodway line (beyond which no construction can take place or obstructions can be erected) being located just 25 feet to the west of the present location of the building, the developable area is even more restricted. (Note: The creek has been channelized in the subdivision in which the site is located, and, if requested, the Corpse of Engineers can amend the F.E.M.A. maps to show the floodway contained within the channel. The applicant, then, could have use of more of the property, since the floodway would not consume nearly 100 feet of the rear of the property.) E. ANALYSIS• The requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for University Ave., coupled with the fact that the floodway designation takes 100 feet of the rear of the lot, leaves very little developable area on the site. Basically, the 25 feet of flood plain area, plus 15 feet between the floodplain line and the building line is the developable area. This could be remedied greatly by requesting that the Corpse of Engineers modify the flood maps to contain the floodway within the concrete channel along the rear of the property. This would allow use of a great deal of additional land on the lot. As it now stands, though, it is doubtful that the amount of parking proposed by the applicant can be located on the site. Also, the required opaque screen (fence), which cannot obstruct flood waters cannot be located in the floodway. 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862 Hendrix St. is a residential street, and access to it from University Ave. was closed. A cul-de-sac was provided as a turn -around for the residential traffic in the residential subdivision, and no access was permitted to University Ave. The Public Works requirement that parking for the proposed Pro -Life Center be taken from University Ave. should mean that access from the site to Hendrix St. should be restricted. A "no access" easement and, if necessary, barricades should be provided to assure that traffic does not take a "short-cut" from the site to Hendrix St. The site, as presented, will require substantial re -design. The building and parking will have to be moved further to the east, and planned improvements (a drainage Swale and required screening) will have to be removed from the floodway; or, alternatively, the Corpse of Engineers will have to be requested to re -designate the floodway limits. Since there are substantial changes which will be needed, and since staff has reviewed any proposed changes, a recommendation for approval cannot be made at this time. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the site plan review, pending submission of a revised site plan which conforms to the various requirements for dedication of required right-of- way; placement of the building, parking, buffers, and landscaping; and, elimination of structures and obstructions in the floodway. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994) The Reverend Mr. Keller was present. Staff reviewed the plan with the Committee members. The Public Works staff reviewed with Rev. Keller the civil engineering requirements noted in the discussion outline, including the requirement to shift the parking lot so that no part of it is in the floodway; to shift the drive so that the access to the parking is from University Ave., not Hendrix St.; and to eliminate the drainage swale which is shown to be cut into the floodway. Staff outlined the landscaping and buffer requirements, and the Public Works staff cautioned the applicant about placing any fencing or any of the buffer requirements in the floodway or floodplain. The Committee clarified with Mr. Keller that he had reviewed and understood the comments contained in the discussion outline, then forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. 4 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5862 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Staff reported that there are substantive issues to be resolved regarding placement of the building, the drive, parking, landscaping, fencing, etc. Rev. Keller, the applicant, has, staff reported, asked verbally that the item be deferred in order for him to have additional time to address staff concerns and the deficiencies noted in the agenda write-up, but had not provided a written request. Rev. Keller, staff related, was present to make the request to the Commission. Rev. Keller, addressing the Planning Commission, stated that he needed a deferral until the November 29, 1994 hearing in order to revise his site plan. The item was included on the consent agenda for deferral, and the deferral until November 29, 1994 was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which addresses the concerns noted by Public Works. The primary concerns was the encroachment of the parking lot, fencing and drainage swale into the floodway; this has been remedied. Staff also opposed access to the site by way of Hendrix Street; this has been changed so that access is from University Avenue. There are no remaining issues to be resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that all deficiencies and issues have been resolved, and that the applicant had provided plans which keep all improvements out of the floodway easement, as required. Staff reported that the applicant has agreed to erect barricades around the Hendrix St. cul-de-sac prior to beginning construction, as requested by the residential neighbors along Hendrix St. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -4085-C NAME: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER: FRED RODGERS 2407 S. Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72206 374-9844 AREA: 1.88 ACRES ENGINEER• Samuel L. Davis S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. 5301 West 8th. Street Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Day Care and Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order to make substantive changes to the originally approved master site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings on the site. The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors on April 19, 1988, in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St. containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200 square feet. The existing 2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square foot building was to be a child care center. Subsequent to that approval, the residential care use was implemented in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.; however, the two new buildings were not built. Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care. Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C 20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry/drop-off point for the child care facility, and to provide parking and an access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990. Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included in the PRD site, and the uses are proposed to change. An additional residential lot which faces Battery St. is to be included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential structure. It is to be used for offices for the facility on one side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor, but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain child care space on the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on the second. The applicant states that a residential care facility is one which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24-hour basis, a place of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live. This use includes providing a place for daily activities for residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The facility, then, will include lounge and living areas, a central dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities, laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed. The child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 1/2 years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12, plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will include a multi-purpose area for activities, dining, and sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets for adults and children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office. The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire site is to be fenced for security purposes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to: 1) include additional land area in the PRD site and amend the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and K November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its 2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first floor and residential care on the second floor. The second floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment. Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop-off/pick- up drive for the child care facility and parking for residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain link fencing for security purposes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide residential lot currently zoned R-4. On the 1.66 acre site is a single 2 -story, 10,640 square foot facility presently being used for child care on the first floor only. The second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The 50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it. All surrounding property is zoned R-4. There is an elementary school directly to the west of the site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit, engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater detention. Water Works reports no objections. Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between the two existing buildings in the abandoned right-of-way, but in which the easements were retained) lies over an existing 6" sewer main. The sewer main will have to be relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the building will not be permitted to occupy the alley easement. Site Plan review reports that a 6' high opaque wood fence with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area from the residential property to the north. An upgrade in non -conforming landscape area will be required equal to the amount of the expansion. Q November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed, will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new building alongside an existing structure will be in violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as providing exterior fire separation and protection of both existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall construction in several locations; and installation of a fire sprinkling system. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing power line in the alley. They report that an easement must be provided; however, since the easement was retained when the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still in existence. Arkansas Louisiana Cas Co. approved the plan as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as submitted. The Fire Department will require that the 12 foot wide drive on the north side of the existing daycare building, extending to the north side of the new addition, be increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire equipment. Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area and the remodeled residence from the residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade in non -conforming landscaping will be required equal to the amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be required to comply with the landscaping ordinance. Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends single-family use for this site. Due to the location next to an elementary school and the visibility problems along Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however, the use is a residential housing situation and child and adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause significant adverse effects. M November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the requirement is 0.5 spaces/sleeping accommodation. The applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents. This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there are two apartments provided. These require an additional 2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of 1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150 children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66; 86 spaces are provided. The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering space must be provided on-site for vehicles to park, back, and then to enter Battery St. driving forward. The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns. This division reports that the applicant proceeded to construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permit, and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement. The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first, seek the abandonment of the utility easement, relocating any needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the foundation for the proposed building. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective. The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs of relocating the utility lines, as required. He has stated that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant: 1) being successful in his application to abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned; and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping, and other comments noted above. 5 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994) Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a plan without fully realizing what will be required by the Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon the utility easement in the alley, would do what is necessary to relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes approving the construction. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: Subsequent to the September 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing, but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors, staff realized that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of all property owners within 200 feet and that the owner had been notified of the proposed action as required by the Commission Bylaws. It was confirmed with the applicant that, indeed, the required supplemental notification had not been accomplished. Therefore, the previous action by the Commission was taken without the applicant conforming to the instructions and Bylaw requirements, and the item must be heard at a public hearing, after proper notification, again. 0 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4085-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had not complied with either the Commission Bylaw requirements concerning having a licensed abstractor provide a certified list of property owners within 200 feet of the site, nor the Bylaw requirement that all property owners within 200 feet be notified of the meeting. Staff reported that the list of property owners presented to staff was only a computer print-out from the Pulaski County Tax Assessor's office of residential property owners within the 2400 -block of S. Wolfe St. and S. Battery St., and that this list did not include, as a property owner, the Little Rock School District which owns the block across S. Battery St. from the Mid-America Center site, and the list does not include property owners on the south side of W. Roosevelt Rd. and the north side of W. 24th. St. who are within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing to allow the applicant to correct the notification deficiencies. The recommendation for deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. fi November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5-1042 NAME: THE VILLAGES OF WELLINGTON, PHASE 2 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Beyond the west end of Adour Dr. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• WINROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. Box 8080 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 663-5340 374-1666 AREA: 16.6 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 45 FT. NEW STREET: 1,680 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential (There is an alternate plan showing a church site which may occupy a portion of the tract.) PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Variance of the allowable length of a cul-de-sac street for Regiment Ct. 2) Waiver of the sidewalk requirement for Regiment Court. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the subdivision of a 16.6 acre tract, creating 45 single-family residential lots along 1680 feet of new streets. As an alternate scheme, the applicant proposes to shorten Regiment Court, and to create a "Tract All for a church site at the southwest corner of the plat. If the church site is not implemented, and Regiment Court extends to the south boundary of the plat, then Regiment Court is 1,035 feet in length, and thus exceeds the maximum allowable length for a cul-de-sac street; consequently, a 35 foot variance of the 1,000 foot maximum length of a cul-de-sac street standard is requested. The applicant proposes a pedestrian system involving the construction of pathways and trails as an alternative to sidewalks on residential streets within the subdivision, and, a waiver of the requirement to construct sidewalks on standard residential streets (involving only Regiment Court in this plat) November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1042 is requested. Construction of a sidewalk along the right-of-way of the future minor arterial roadway is proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for two proposals which are not in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations: 1) a variance of the regulation which sets the maximum length of a cul-de-sac street at 1000 feet, and permit Regiment Court to be 1035± in length; and 2) a waiver of the regulation which requires sidewalks on all standard residential streets (involving only Regiment Court within the Phase 2 development), with the implementation of a pedestrian pathway and trail system within the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, with scattered trees and low vegetation. The topography is rolling, dropping towards the southwest from a high point along the northeast boundary of the site. The difference in topography is approximately 75 feet. Bounding the site on the north is an area in which streets are currently being constructed, and for which a preliminary plat was previously approved as a phase of the St. Charles subdivision. This area is being developed as the Phase I development of The Villages of wellington area. The existing zoning of the tract, and of the areas to the east, north, and northwest, is R-2. At the southwest corner of the tract, across the future minor arterial roadway, is an MF -18 tract. To the south is MF -18 and an 0-3 zoned land. At the southeast corner of the platted area is the Parkway Village PRD site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works notes that: 1) the grades indicated on certain streets within the subdivision exceed the maximum permitted by Code; 2) the streets shown as Regiment Court, Salem Circle, and Dovecote Drive are all one continuous street, and need to have one name; 3) construction of one-half of the designated arterial street will be required to Master Street Plan requirements; 4) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required and a NPDES permit will be required; 5) sidewalks, per the Master Street Plan, are to be shown on the plat; 6) if the area at the south end of Regiment Court is to be developed as a church site, then Regiment Court must terminate in a cul-de-sac a minimum of 50' from the property line, and 2 November 25, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1042 access to the church site cannot be taken from Regiment Court; and, 7) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey requirements will be required. Water Works comments that water main extensions will be required. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies, in addition to the normal charges in this area. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 20 foot easement will be required along the north -south boundary line at the southeast corner of the plat. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that easements will be required. A 5 foot easement is to be provided around the south, east, and north property lines, and a 10 foot easement is to be provided at the north -south property line lying between the two cul-de-sacs. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-201(h) states that "new boundary streets shall be avoided, except where a requirement of the Master Street Plan provides a defined alignment. In that event, the plat shall provide one-half of the Master Street Plan's specified improvements and right-of-way." A designated route of a minor arterial roadway lies along the west boundary of the plat; therefore, the developer will be required to provide one-half of the Master Street Plan required right-of-way and improvements. Section 31-202 states that "culs-de-sac streets shall have a maximum length of one thousand (1,000) feet." If the church site is not developed, and Regiment Court extends to the south as shown, the length of the cul-de-sac street will be 1,035 feet; thus, a variance of the standard will be required. Section 31-209 requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of minor arterial roadways and on one side of standard residential streets. On minor residential streets (culs-de- sac streets of less than 750 feet in length, or loop streets of less than 1,500 feet), sidewalks may be omitted. Regiment Court, if it extends to the south as shown, will 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.:- 5-1042 require a sidewalk along one side of the street. The future minor arterial will require construction of a sidewalk along the plat's boundary. Section 31-232(d) states: "Double frontage lots are prohibited. However, where a subdivision abuts...(a) proposed arterial street..., reverse frontage lots are permitted." Lots along Regiment Court are double frontage lots, but since they back up to a future arterial street, they are not in conflict with the regulations. E. ANALYSIS: As far as the preliminary plat standards are concerned, there are only minor issues to be resolved. The issue of the variance from the 1,000 foot cul-de-sac standard is minor, since the affected street will require only a 35 foot variance. The issue of the waiver of the sidewalk standard for residential streets will require some consideration; however, the issue may be moot if the alternate plan for providing a church site is implemented. (The only street which would require a sidewalk would be shortened, and would meet the standard for a minor residential street, requiring no sidewalk.) F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and approval of the variance for the maximum length of the cul- de-sac street, in order for Regiment Court to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum allowable length by 35t feet. The Public Works staff recommends denial of the waiver of the sidewalk requirements for standard residential streets. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline, and Mr. White responded to the various comments. There was specific discussion regarding the possibility of a church occupying a portion of the site, with the conclusion that if this occurs, the street, shown as Regiment Court, needs to terminate in a cul-de-sac, and not extend to the church boundary. It was suggested that the alternate plan showing the church site, be shown on the plat as an alternate layout. The Committee members discussed the suggestion that the streets shown as Dovecote Dr., Salem Circle, and Regiment Court be renamed as one continuous street. There was discussion about the plan to seek a waiver of sidewalk requirements, and, instead, to substitute a plan of 4 l November 2`.;,, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1042 pathways and trails within the subdivision. Mr. white indicated that the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline would be remedied, then the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has indicated that the tract designated as a possible church site will, almost certainly, be developed as a single large site, in lieu of being developed as residential lots, and that such a development will make the requested variance for the allowable length of a cul-de-sac and the waiver of the sidewalk requirement for Regiment Ct. moot. Staff related, however, that the applicant has stated that, in the event the development does not proceed, the requested wavier of the sidewalk along Regiment Ct. has been withdrawn. The only remaining issue, in case the church is not developed, is the cul-de-sac length variance for Regiment Ct. Staff recommended approval of this minimal variance. The item, approval of the preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval of the cul-de-sac length variance, was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S -1042-A NAME: THE VILLAGES OF WELLINGTON, PHASE 3 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of and beyond the present end of Loyola Dr. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: WINROCK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. Box 8080 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 663-5340 374-1666 AREA: 23.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 59 FT. NEW STREET: 2,900 ZONING: R-2, MF -6, PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential MF -18, & OS PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the prohibition of pipestem lots for Lot 11, Phase 3A. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the subdivision of a 23.8 acre tract, creating 59 single-family residential lots along 2,900 feet of new streets. Sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along both the collector street, Loyola Drive, and the standard residential street, Wetherborne Dr. One lot, Lot 11 in Phase 3A, is proposed to be a pipestem lot. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which prohibits the creation of pipestem lots, and permit one pipestem lot for Lot 11, Phase 3A. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, and is wooded. The topography rises from an elevation of approximately 550 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level) along the east boundary of the site, to over 660 feet, MSL along the west boundary of the subdivision. Bounding the tract to the south is a phase of the St. November 2�,, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • S -1042-A Charles Subdivision which is currently being developed, and Loyola Dr. extends northward into the proposed subdivision from St. Charles Subdivision. To the north, east, and west are large areas of undeveloped land. The site is currently predominantly zoned R-2; however, there are areas within the boundary which are zoned MF -6, MF -18, and OS. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the grades indicated on certain streets exceed the maximum permitted by Code; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required, and a NPDES permit will be required; 3) sidewalks, per the Master Street Plan, are to be shown on the plat; 4) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey requirements will be required. The Public Works staff objects to the pipestem lot waiver which is requested, but states that if a pipestem waiver is granted, the pipestem should be a minimum width of 30 feet in order to be able to construct a driveway with aprons, and have room for a mailbox within the frontage area of the lot. Water Works comments that water main extensions will be required. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area, in addition to the normal charges. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 20 foot easement will be required along the north -south boundary at the southwest corner of the plat. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that easements will be required at the perimeter of the plat area, as well as at critical lot lines. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-232(8) states that pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions„ One lot, Lot 11 of Phase 3A, is proposed to be a pipestem lot; therefore, a waiver of this prohibition will be required. 2 { November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1042-A The developer proposes to extend Loyola Dr. as a collector street, and proposes to construct the required sidewalk along one side of the street. The developer proposes construct Wetherborne Dr. as a standard residential street to the north boundary of the subdivision, to provide access to the undeveloped tract beyond. These provisions are in conformance with the City Engineer's requirements. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed subdivision meets all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, except for the waiver being requested to permit one pipestem lot. The applicant has, in response to the Public Works comment regarding the pipestem lot, made the width of the pipestem 30 feet to address the Public Works concern. Only minor technical deficiencies remain to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and the Planning staff recommends approval of the pipestem lot waiver. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff addressed the concern of the width of pipestems, saying that when pipestems are 20 feet in width, there is insufficient room within the frontage of the pipestem lot for a 10 foot driveway with 5 foot approach aprons on each side and a mailbox space. This is especially true when, on a cul-de-sac or curved street, the lot line extensions converge in the right-of-way, and the lot frontage is reduced significantly at the curb line. The Public Works staff cited recurring problems with these types of situations, and indicated that, on straight sections of streets, the minimum width of a pipestem be 30 feet. Mr. White indicated that the 30 foot minimum width could be accommodated in the proposed plat, and that he could appreciate the Public Works concern. There was also a discussion about whether Wetherborne Dr. should be constructed to collector standards, or should be terminated in a cul-de-sac. Mr. White indicated that the developable area to the north was limited, and that Wetherborne Dr. would serve only a limited number of home sites from that area; that Wetherborne Dr. needed to extend to the subdivision boundary, however, to provide access to this land. With this 3 r November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1042-A discussion, and with Mr. White's assurance that deficiencies would be remedied, the Committee forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has revised the plat to provide for a 30 foot minimum width pipestem for Lot 11, Phase 3A, and, consequently, that all issues are resolved, except for the basic issue of whether the single pipestem lot should be permitted. The Planning staff recommends approval of the requested pipestem lot waiver for this single lot in this phase. The item, approval of the preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval of the pipestem waiver, was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1043 NAME: TOM MAJOR ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Beyond the present end of Flintridge Rd., approximately 0.25 mile north of Stagecoach Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: THOMAS R. MAJOR WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7720 Flintridge Rd. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72210 Little Rock, AR 72201 455-0778 374-1666 AREA: 7.6 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential 1). Waiver of Master Street Plan requirements for right-of-way and improvements on Flintridge Rd. 2). Waiver of prohibition of pipestem lots. 3). Variance of the regulation which restricts lot depths to be not more than 3 times the lot width. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat in order to develop two home sites on a 7.6 acre tract. The front 1.2 acre tract contains the applicant's current residence; he has acquired the rear/west 6.4 acre tract, and wishes to develop this rear tract as a new home site for himself, while leaving the present home as a rent or marketable house. This rear tract is landlocked at the present time, although it will have frontage along its west boundary when a future minor arterial roadway is developed which is designated to abut the property along its west boundary. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way for this future minor arterial roadway. Access to the existing home site is to Flintridge Rd., to the east, and a pipestem is proposed to be provided along the north edge of the present home site to provide the required access to the rear tract. Flintridge Rd. is proposed to remain in its present condition, as a paved rural residential street. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1043 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission of the proposed preliminary plat. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for the two waivers and one variance which are requested: a waiver of the regulation which would require that the applicant provide right-of-way and make Master Street Plan improvements to Flintridge Rd.; a waiver of the Subdivision Regulation which prohibits the creation of pipestem lots; and a variance of the regulation which requires that lots not be more than 3 times as deep as they are wide. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed subdivision lies at the west end of Flintridge Rd., with the front/east 1.2 acre tract containing the applicant's current home site. The rear/west 6.4 acre tract is undeveloped and heavily wooded, and, at this time, is landlocked. (However, when the David O Dodd Rd. realignment and extension are constructed, this west tract will have frontage on that roadway.) Flintridge Rd. is an open -ditch, paved, rural road street section, with scattered home sites along its length. The topography of the proposed subdivision is hilly, with the land dropping off to the west from an elevation of approximately 352 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the Flintridge Rd. frontage of the site, to approximately 330 feet MSL along the west boundary of the site. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning on all lands to the north, west, south, and east. There is a large 0-3 zoned tract abutting the site at the northeast corner of the site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) dedication of the right-of- way along the west boundary of the proposed subdivision for a minor arterial will be required; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required, and a NPDES permit will be required if 5 acres is to be disturbed; and, 3) street plans and boundary survey information will be required. Public Works notes that the wedge of property between the end of Flintridge Rd. and the applicant's property is owned by the abutting property owner to the north, so the applicant will need to acquire this property in order for the subdivision to have frontage on Flintridge Rd. The applicant will then need to dedicate this property to the City as right-of-way for Flintridge K ( f f November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1043 Rd., then will be required to extend Flintridge Rd. within the dedicated right-of-way along the frontage of the proposed subdivision, and to construct a "T" -turnaround or a cul-de-sac at the end of Flintridge Rd. Public Works recommends that the requested waiver of providing and dedicating street -right-of-way for and making -Master Street Plan improvements to Flintridge Rd. be denied. Public works recommends that the requested waiver of the prohibition of pipestem lots be denied, but that if a pipestem lot is approved, the pipestem have a minimum width of 30 feet in order for the applicant to be able to construct a driveway with aprons, and have sufficient room for a mailbox within the pipestem lot frontage in the right-of-way. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required. 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 around the perimeter of the subdivision, and along the lot line between Lots 1 & 2. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the preliminary plat without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-232(8) states that pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions. Since the 6.4 acre tract is landlocked, at least until the David 0 Dodd Rd. extension is constructed, the only means for developing the tract is to provide a pipestem from Flintridge Rd. to the tract. The rear/west 6.4 acre tract, once the David 0 Dodd Rd. extension is constructed, will have frontage on both David 0 Dodd Rd. on the west, and on Flintridge Rd. by way of the pipestem on the east. Section 31-232(4) prohibits double frontage lots, but allows them when one of the frontages is an arterial street. David O Dodd Rd. will be a minor arterial street; therefore there is no conflict with the regulation. 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1043 Section 31-232(b) states that: "No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide". The proposed Lot 2 is 250 feet wide (excluding its width at the pipestem) and is 1,115 feet deep. Three (3) times the 250 width is 750 feet; therefore, a 365 foot variance is required: Public Works has indicated that, if the pipestem waiver is granted, the pipestem width be a minimum of 30 feet. Because the existing home is located close to the north boundary of the front/east tract though which the pipestem must pass, the pipestem must be 20 feet beside the house, but, the applicant has shown the pipestem tapering to 30 feet in width at the frontage of Flintridge Rd. Section 31-231 states that: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission." Section 31-2 Definitions, defines a subdivision as a division of a tract of land "involving the need for new access", but excludes divisions of land where the parcels which are created are greater than five (5) acres and have minimum lot frontage on legal and physical access. The words "legal and physical access" are key words. Public Works has noted that the applicant's property does not have frontage on a public street; that there is a wedge of land which lies between the applicant's property and the Flintridge Rd. right-of-way. The applicant does, however, have physical access to his property, in that there is a driveway to Flintridge Rd. from his home site. The applicant does, presumably, have legal access due to the length of time he has used the land for access to his home site by way of adverse possession. The Planning Commission should be able to approve the proposed subdivision, subject to the Board of Directors granting the requested waivers and the variance, without regard for the "access" issue. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed subdivision poses several problems, as outlined above, which are in conflict with the Subdivision Regulations, and which, if taken out of the context of the applicant's situation, could lead to a decision to deny the application. If it is recalled, however, that the applicant bought and has remodeled the older home on the smaller tract which fronts on Flintridge Rd. as an interim home, then acquired and planned to develop the larger western tract for a home sites for himself, and that the proposal is for 2 homes on 7.6 acres, the scale of the proposal takes on different proportions. The proposed subdivision is for an individual trying to develop a site for his own home, and 4 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1043 retain or market the interim home. There is no way to have access to this second home site, at least for the time being, except to approve a pipestem. As an individual developing a 2 -lot subdivision for himself, requiring improvements to Flintridge Rd. would be burdensome. The wavers and the variance, -then, arereasonable departures from the standards in order for the applicant to be able to accomplish his goal. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and the Planning staff recommends approval of the two wavers and the one variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline, and the Public Works staff reviewed with Mr. White and the Committee members the Public Works comments regarding the Flintridge Rd. right-of-way issues and Master Street Plan issues, and the pipestem lot concerns. Mr. White indicated that he would study the concerns and try to address the issues, but indicated that the requested waivers and the variance would probably need to be pursued. The Committee members, after the discussion, forwarded the proposed preliminary plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has produced documentation that, in fact, the Flintridge Rd. right-of-way abutting the property has been dedicated; that, therefore, access to the property is not an issue. Staff reported that the Planning staff supports the other requested waivers (the waiver of street improvement requirements and the waiver to permit the creation of a pipestem lot) and the variance (for the lot depth to width ratio). Staff reported that there are no other issues to resolve. The item, approval of the preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval of the waiver of the street improvement requirement, the waiver to permit the creation of a pipestem lot, and the variance for the lot depth to width ratio, was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3a FILE NO.: S -867 -PP NAME: CHENAL VALLEY, TRACT 13 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 0.5 mile north of the Kanis Rd. intersection DEVELOPER: JOHN R. CARMICHAEL ENGINEER: WESTWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5950 Berkshire Ln. 401 S. Victory St. Suite 500, LB 43 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dallas, TX 75225 374-1666 (214) 369-9433 AREA: 17.99 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 4,000 (Boundary Street improvements, only.) ZONING: MF -24, MF -18, & R-2 and C-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential The applicant proposes a one -lot preliminary plat in order to construct an apartment development. The lot/plat area will provide for the development of a 17.99 acre site, and will include the construction of the full width of the boundary street along the north boundary of the site. No waivers or variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for a one -lot plat is requested. No waivers or variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography is rolling, with a high point at the center of the tract rising approximately 35 feet above the south and north elevations. The median cut in Chenal Parkway is existing, and aligns November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -867 -PP with the boundary street to be constructed along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision/lot. The existing zoning is MF -18, MF -24, C-2, and R-2. Surrounding the site is C-2 zoned land to the north, MF -18 to- the -northwest, R -2 --to the west MF -=24 to the south, and 0-2 across Chenal Parkway to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the vertical and horizontal alignment of the street shown as Village Dr. is not acceptable, that further review is needed, and the intersection design will require approval; 2) the area of the site cannot be determined, since there is no metes and bounds legal description shown on the plat; 3) the base flood elevation information and minimum finish floor elevation information are required at the time a development permit is approved; 4) sidewalks, per the Master Street Plan, are to be shown on the plat; and, 5) the street plan, stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required. (Public Works notes that the plan area is outside the floodplain study area.) Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area, in addition to the normal connection charges. The Fire Department will need to review the plans to determine whether additional on-site fire hydrants will be required. Wastewater comments that a capacity analysis will be required, and capacity contribution fees will be assessed. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the north, west, and south boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the south and east boundary of the property. The Fire Department approved the preliminary plat without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are Public Works issues regarding the design of the boundary street which need to be resolved. Otherwise, there are no outstanding technical issues. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3a (Continued) FILE NO.: 5 -867 -PP E. ANALYSIS• The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, except for the boundary street design issue. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant making the required changes to the design of the boundary street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with white-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White, the Public Works staff person, and the Committee members discussed the boundary street design issue, and Mr. White said that he could make the needed changes to meet the Public Works design requirements. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for approval of the preliminary plat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that all required changes, as brought out at the Subdivision Committee meeting, has been made, and all concerns had been addressed. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3b FILE NO.: S -285-S NAME: THE RANCH, TRACT MF -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 0.4 mile north of Highway 10, between Chenonceau Blvd. and Patrick Country Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: RANCH PROPERTIES, INC. WHITE -RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. 0. Box 56350 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 18.06 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 2,000 ZONING: MF -18 & R-2 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1). Deferral of the required Master Street Plan improvements for Patrick Country Road, and a waiver of the requirement to construct the bridge spanning the creek on Patrick Country Road. 2). Waiver from the restriction on double -frontage lots. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 18.06 tract, involving the creation of a single 14.97 acre lot and the dedication of the right-of-way for and construction or Chenonceau Blvd. from the lot to Highway 10. Although the west boundary of the lot abuts Patrick Country Rd., no access is proposed to be taken to this road, and a deferral is proposed of the required Master Street Plan improvements to Patrick Country Rd. until the Phase 2 development of the apartment project. The applicant does propose, however, to dedicate the required right-of-way for Patrick Country Rd. A waiver of the requirement to construct the bridge over the creek which crosses Patrick Country Road is sought. A. PROPOSALiREOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission of the preliminary plat is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for a deferral of the required Master Street Plan improvements for Patrick Country Rd. is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for the waiver of the ( t November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3b (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-285-S requirement to construct the bridge over the creek which crosses Patrick Country Road is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for the waiver of the restriction on double -frontage lots is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area of the proposed lot is undeveloped and wooded. The topography is rolling, dropping generally to the south from an elevation along the north property line of approximately 270-300 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to 265-270 feet MSL along the southern boundary of the lot. There is a creek lying along the south boundary of the proposed lot. The existing zoning of the majority of the site is MF -18, although there is a 20 foot wide strip of R-2 land lying along the north boundary of the lot. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the minimum drainage requirements (per Sec. 31 of the Code) are not met by the site layout as presented; 2) one-half street improvements will be required for Patrick County Rd. (The Master Street Plan shows this road to be a collector street, which requires a street width of 361, with a sidewalk; and, construction of the full width of the bridge over the creek at the southwest corner of the tract will be required.); 3) the Base Flood elevation at this site is approximately 264 NGVD, and the floodplain encroaches on both this property and on Chenoneau Blvd. (Contact Public Works, ADPC&E, AND USAGE -LRD prior to beginning any site work.); 4) both vertical and horizontal roadway alignment must be verified to assure adequate sight distance; and, 5) street plan, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required in order to serve this property. On-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater comments that a capacity analysis will be required. Capacity contribution fees, Hinson Reimbursement Fees, The Ranch Reimbursement Fees, and Chenal North Slope Reimbursement Fees will be assessed. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that 15 foot easements will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. 9 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3b (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-S Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department will require additional fire hydrants for this complex. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-232 states that double frontage lots are prohibited. The proposed lot, although it is a large lot encompassing the entire subdivision, is a double frontage lot, and a waiver of the requirement will be needed. The Public Works requirement for improvements to Patrick Country Road, including providing one-half of a collector street and a sidewalk, and construction of the full width of the bridge over the creek, are the major considerations needing to be addressed. The applicant has requested a deferral of the street improvements requirements, and indicates that it should not be the applicant's responsibility to build the bridge, at all. The subdivision is proposed in order to construct an apartment project, and the applicant anticipates constructing the Patrick Country Road street and sidewalk improvements in conjunction with the Phase 2 development, and after the City constructs the bridge. E. ANALYSIS• The technical requirements of the proposed preliminary plat are met; the questions regarding the deferral of the Patrick Country Road improvements are the remaining issues to be resolved. Since the developer has proposed a phased development of the apartment project, if the Planning Commission approves the phased development, the requirements for street improvement will be deferred until the second phase. Since Patrick Country Road dead -ends at a line at or near the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision, and development along Patrick Country Road is sparse, a deferral of the requirements seems in order. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat; of the requested waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots; and of the deferral of the Master Street Plan improvements, including construction of the bridge, for 5 years, or until the development of the Phase 2 portion of the apartment project, whichever comes first. Staff does not recommend approval of the outright waiver of the requirement to 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3b (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-S construct the bridge, and recommends that the bridge improvements be considered, as the regulations suggest, as one element in the required Master Street Plan improvements. uUBDIVI-S1ON- COMMITTEE --COMMENT: (NOVEMBER -101 1994 -)-- Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments continued in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff person outlined the Public Works concerns, and Mr. White, the Public Works staff person, and the Committee members discussed the concerns. Mr. White indicated that it was the developer's understanding that the bridge construction would be the City's responsibility, and that the developer was proposing to defer constructing one-half collector street improvements until the City built the bridge. Mr. White indicated that he would need to discuss this issue with the applicant in more detail. The Committee forwarded the proposed plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has agreed that when there is any development north of the creek on Patrick Country Rd., or if the applicant develops a substantial portion of the office district south of the proposed project, then the applicant will construct one-half Master Street Plan street and sidewalk improvements and pay for one-half of the bridge, as required by the Master Street Plan. Staff indicated that, until either of these situations occurs, the City will support a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements (street, sidewalk, and bridge construction) along Patrick Country Rd. Staff reported that the development is a single lot, and that the Subdivision Regulations prohibit double -frontage lots; therefore, that a waiver of the restriction needs to be passed. Staff supports both the deferral, as agreed to, and the waiver. The item, approval of the preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval of the Master Street Plan deferral and the waiver of the restriction on the creation of double -frontage lots, was included on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 �r November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S -50-G NAME: PLEASANT RIDGE SQUARE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., between Woodland Rd. and Pleasant Ridge Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: LOU SCHICKEL WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2723 Foxcroft, Suite 201 401 S. victory St. Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 225-7807 374-1666 AREA: 14.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2, C-1, & PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center & Offices The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 14.5 acre tract as a commercial subdivision to contain 3 lots, and involving the dedication of the required additional right-of-way along the Highway 10 frontage of the site, on the woodland Road frontage, and on the Fairview Rd. frontage. The applicant proposes to make the required street improvements to Woodland Rd. and to Fairview Rd. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: Planning Commission approval of the preliminary plat, as submitted, is requested. There are no variances or waivers involved in the application. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The rear portion of the site is undeveloped; some of which is cleared of trees and some of which is heavily wooded. The subdivision contains the site currently occupied by the drive-in convenience store which is immediately opposite the Southridge Road intersection, and which is zoned PCD. The site also contains a tract along the west boundary of the site which is zoned C-1. All required street improvements along Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Rd. are in place. woodland Rd. and Fairview Rd. have substandard rights-of-way November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-50-G and street improvements. The topography rises consistently from north to south, with approximately a 75 foot rise in elevation from Highway 10 to the south boundary of the tract. The site-is-predominantlyzoned R-2. - The --convenience- store - at the Southridge Rd. intersection is zoned PCD; the Lot 1 area, which lies along the west boundary of the proposed subdivision, is zoned C-1. The zoning to the south and east is R-2. To the west is R-2 and 0-3 zoned property. To the north, on the south side of Highway 10, is C-1, PGD, and C-2 land. Across Highway 10 to the north, the land is all zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) Highway 10 will require dedication of an additional 15 foot right-of-way, but will require no street improvements; 2) Woodland Rd. will require dedication of an additional 12.5 foot right-of-way and construction of one-half Master Street Plan improvements; 3) Fairview Rd. will require dedication of an additional 3.63 foot right-of-way and construction of one- half Master Street Plan improvements; 4) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-156, will be required before construction begins, and a NPDES permit will be required; and, 5) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey requirements will be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the exterior boundaries of the site, plus along the lot line between Lots 2 and 3. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement along the south boundary line, and along each side of the internal lot line. The Fire Department approved the preliminary plat without comment. K, November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued)_ FILE NO.: 5-50-G D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Public Works has cited the requirement for Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication along the Highway 10 frontage of the site, and for right-of-way dedication and one-half street -improvements- along the Wood-l-and--Rd.--and-Fairview- Rd-. -- - frontages of the site. The applicant proposes to meet these requirements. There are no issues to be resolved. E. ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat which is proposed meets all Subdivision Ordinance requirements, with no variances being requested. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the deficiencies and concerns noted in the discussion outline, and Mr. White reviewed with staff and the Committee members these items. He indicated that he would make the needed changes, and would propose a preliminary plat which would meet all requirements. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and that the preliminary plat, as amended following the Subdivision Committee meeting, meets all Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The item, then, was included on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -3510-A NAME: VILLAGE AT FOXCROFT WOODS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of Foxcroft Rd., approximately 0.15 mile north of Cantrell Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: FOXCROFT VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP SAMUEL L. DAVIS WILLIAM R. LILE S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. #3 West Palisades 5301 West 8th. Street Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-4971 664-0324 AREA: 2.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 21 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• 0-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential None The applicant proposes a "PRD" in order to develop a 2.3 acre site for 21 detached townhomes on "substandard" lots ranging in size from 33 feet in width to 36 feet to one at 43 feet. Each of the townhomes is to be 2 -levels, containing a minimum of 1,750 square feet. Each townhome is to have a garage, patios and decks at the rear yard, and a fenced courtyard at the front. The access to the site is by way of an existing internal driveway which is to be shared with the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PRD for the "Village at Foxcroft Woods" townhomes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is on land which was formerly part of the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums, but the Resolution Trust Corp. has divided the property and sold off the portion being developed as the Village at Foxcroft Woods. There is a private internal driveway which separates the two developments, and the property line between the two is along November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3510-A the centerline of the private drive. The site is level and cleared of timber and vegetation. The existing zoning of the tract is 0-2; the existing Foxcroft Woods Condominiums was approved as a Conditional Use --in -the-0-2- zoned site.— --The--zoning—to--the--souther -then-, is the 0-2 tract on which Foxcroft Woods Condominiums is situated. To the north is R-2 and R-4 land, with the Little Rock Racquet Club being located in the R-2 area. To the west is an MF -18 tract. Across Foxcroft Rd. is an R-5 area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the easements which are shown do not correspond to the easement locations shown on the previous plat; 2 ) the detention area is shown to be on the ARKLA gas easement, and this condition will not be permitted; 3) information on the total available access is to be shown on the plan, in lieu of only the one curb and one-half of the driveway which is shown; 4) the stormwater detention and the boundary survey requirements will be required; 5) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction; and, 6) the existing topographic information is to be shown. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required to serve the development. Wastewater comments that there is an existing sewer main on the site, and its location conflicts with the proposed layout. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the north and west boundary of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. comments that there is an existing 35 foot easement paralleling the north property line which is not shown on the plat. The easement was granted in 1965, and is centered on an existing gas main. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the north and west boundary of the site. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review has no comment on this item. 2 November 25, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3510-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The proposed development is on land which was included as part of a larger tract, and the parcel was divided from the - larger- tract--in--a- for-ee-l-osu-r-e -and subsequent-sa-1-e- by the---- Resolution he - Resolution Trust Corp. The proposed development is on land which was included as part of a horizontal property regime, and is covered by a Bill of Assurance for that development. The private driveway shown along the south and east boundary of the site is one-half of the driveway which serves the condominiums. The property line which is shown is at the centerline of the driveway. To meet our ordinance requirements, the entire site needs to be included in a replat, so that the new tract is properly divided from the whole tract, and there needs to be a common driveway access agreement platted. The originally approved site development plan for the entire tract needs to be amended. There are legal issues involving the original horizontal property owners' regime, which are outside the scope of the City's regulations, but which must be addressed by the applicant and the condominium property owners. The legal description on the proposed final plat shows the location as being in T -1-N; it should be T -2-N. Standard residential lots, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, are: a lot with a minimum frontage of 60 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-2 zoning district); a lot with a minimum frontage of 50 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-3 zoning district) ; or, a lot with a minimum frontage of 70 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and an area of at least 7,000 square feet (in the R-4 zoning district). The proposal is for lots with frontages ranging in widths of 33 feet to 43 feet, with lot areas ranging from 4,125 square feet to 5,375 square feet. (The lot depth and area include the area along the front of the lots which is occupied by the private drive.) The PRD process is the means whereby townhome, garden home, and "zero lot line" developments can be accomplished on lots which are less than the required minimum size. No phasing plan has been proposed, so it is assumed that the entire development will be built at one time. If this is not the case, the applicant needs to specify a time frame during which the development will take place. The proposal to extend driveways to garages of each townhome from the head -in parking area along the private common K November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3510-A driveway is not acceptable. There must be a division of the driveway areas from the head -in parking areas. The Planning staff reports that the request is in the West Little Rock Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan - -recommends— 'Multi--Fami-l-y- --uses.--There- a -re-, then, — no land -- use issues, and the proposed use is in conformance with the Plan. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use is in conformance with the Land Use Plan, and the basic concept of the proposal is acceptable. There are, however, serious issues to be resolved. The issue of a proper replatting of the tract with the proper creation of two lots must be resolved. The presence of easements which are not shown on the plat, and which will cause the need for redesign, presents problems. The amending of the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums Bill of Assurance and the provision of an access easement with a provision for maintenance of the common access driveway needs to be addressed. If these issues can be dealt with, then the project can be approved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant addressing the cited issues, and remedying the deficiencies. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Bill Lile, the applicant, and Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, were present. Mr. Davis reviewed with staff and the Committee members the various comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Lile explained that he had acquired the property from the Resolution Trust Corp., and that the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums owners supported his proposal. Staff responded that there are legal issues to be resolved, which, if the Condominiums owners are agreeable, can be accomplished. Mr. Davis indicated that he would verify the location of the easements which the plat and site plan did not indicate, and would make the needed changes in the site design. The Committee forwarded the request to the fill Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff presented the request, and proposed for the PRD and owned by from the overall tract through a 4 (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) related that the property the applicant had been divided sale by the Resolution Trust November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3510-A Corporation. Staff stated that, although the federal government is not subject to the City's subdivision regulations, and the City cannot restrict the R.T.C. in the subdivision of the tract and its sale to a buyer, the City can, however, restrict the development of the land and enforce the subdivision regulations - -on—the—buyer.---Staf--f- reported -that the applicant would have—to-------- incorporate the overall tract in a re -plat, and properly divide the tract into lots containing the previously developed portion and the current development. Staff also reported that there are remaining site plan issues to be resolved. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, representing the developer, indicated that all deficiencies and staff concerns would be addressed and that the Foxcroft Woods Condominiums would be included in a re -plat and an amended Bill of Assurance. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles reported that the approval of the PRD would have to be made subject to the Board of Directors passing the ordinance remedying the PUD ordinance to comply with the November 14, 1994 Supreme Court decision which made the approval of single -use PUD's suspect. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PRD, subject to the Board of Directors approving an amendment to the PUD ordinance allowing single -use PUD's. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 t i November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -3812-C NAME: COMFORT INN HOTEL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of Markham Center Dr., approximately 0.15 mile north of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: DAVID PATEL THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 309 Lynwood Dr. P. O. Box 3837 Jacksonville, AR 72076 Little Rock, AR 72203 834-6283 375-5331 AREA: 1.229 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Hotel PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD for the development of a hotel on a 1.229 acre tract. The applicant relates that "the basic logic in requesting the PCD lies in the fact that the (PCD encourages) a mixture of commercial building uses (office, retail, motel) which are basically high in design attributes, (and) though the use of landscaping, finish materials, and design characteristics, (the proposed) development would maintain the integrity of the established uses and design quality standards (which will) enhance the area." The applicant asserts that the overall effect of the development will be minimal; that guests will be checking in and out of the hotel in the late evening and early morning hours, and this will "virtually eliminate" the possibility of traffic congestion. The hotel is proposed to be a three stories, 68 guest room, 31,326 square foot facility. It will include an enclosed spa and health center. There will be no restaurant, but a continental breakfast will be available to guests. The site will be lighted using 25 foot tall bronzed aluminum light standards, in conjunction with building and perimeter lighting to accent specific details of the building and landscaping. The primary building signage will be located on the building, and will entail a 10 foot tall channel letter. All drives are to be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Parking for 75 vehicles is provided on site, with 71 spaces being required. The project is proposed to begin immediately upon approval of the PCD. No variances are requested. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3812-C A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD in --- order to—leve-1-op—the—Comfort Inn Hotel. No wai:ver-s or- - variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is relatively flat, with a gentle slope downward from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. There are no trees or other vegetation on the site. Immediately to the south is the Motel 6 site in an 0-2 zoned tract. To the west is I-430. To the north is a vacant lot and the U. S. Postal Office/Warehouse in a portion of the 0-3 zoned area. Markham Center Dr. borders the site to the east. The site is currently zoned 0-3, and is a part of a larger 0-3 area extending to the north of the site and to the east of the site across Markham Center Dr. To the south is the Motel 6 in an 0-2 zoned tract. I 430 abuts the site along the west property line. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) stormwater detention and boundary survey information are required; 2) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction; and, 3) the existing topographic information must be shown. Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies, in addition to the normal charges, in this area. Wastewater comments a capacity analysis will be required. If capacity is available, capacity contribution fees will be assessed. If capacity is available, a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the south, east, and north property lines. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement along both the north and south property lines. The Fire Department comments that all interior drives are to be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The drive at the west end 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3812-C of the site is shown as 18' in width. At the south side, by the porte cochere, the drive is shown as 15 feet. These driveway widths are not acceptable. Landscape review reports that the landscape buffer along I- - --- - -43-0—drops be-1-ow—the minimum—width requirement of 8 --feet . The full requirement is 12 feet in width. An 8 foot high opaque wooden fence will be required to screen 3 sides of the dumpster. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff reports that the proposed development is in the Rodney Parham Planning District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Suburban Office" uses. Due to the existing land use pattern, the Plan should show commercial use from this site south to W. Markham St. The use pattern is a shopping center and a restaurant and hotel development. From this site north, the Plan continues to show office uses. The Planning staff indicates, then, that, at present, the proposed use is in conflict with the adopted Plan, but that the Plan should be amended to reflect that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. E. ANALYSIS• With the Land Use Plan amendment proposed to be undertaken by the Planning staff, there is not a land use issue to be resolved. All other technical issues have, or will be, resolved. The proposed hotel is immediately adjacent to another hotel, and lies adjacent to the interstate. Traffic and use conflicts with other uses along Markham Center Dr. should be minimal, since traffic to the hotel occurs at a different time from normal business hours. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the developer and of the architects and engineering firms were present. Staff presented the comments contained in the discussion outline, and the Committee members reviewed the comments and the proposed site plan. The developer's representatives assured the Committee that all deficiencies and corrections would be made. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 3 { November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3812-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the requested PCD would have to be subject to the Board of Directors passing an --ordinance a-Rowing-s-ing-l-e-use PC -DI -s. - - --- - Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineering firm, represented the applicant. Mr. Riggins outlined the scope of the proposed project, and related that all staff concerns had or would be addressed. Commissioner Putnam reported that the Board of Realtors, who had submitted a letter expressing opposition to the proposed PCD, has withdrawn their opposition, and that he was authorized to relay that message. Mr. Delbert Vanlandingham, indicating that he is a consulting engineer and owner of AMI Engineering, located at 201 Markham Center Dr., voiced opposition to the proposed use. He stated that he had built his building approximately one year ago, and that, prior to building his building, he had verified that the zoning in the area along Markham Center Dr. was for office uses, with the exception of the existing Motel 6 across the street from his office location. He stated that there is substantial traffic and noise from vendors and maintenance persons going to the Motel 6 site. He said that Markham Center Dr. is a small street, and that car and truck parking on the street is a problem. He said that the added traffic for another hotel would compound the problem. Mr. Riggins responded that, with there be no restaurant at the proposed hotel, the daytime traffic would minimal. Staff pointed out that the existing land use plan shows the area to be for suburban office developments; however, that the land use had changed, and that commercial uses were appropriate. Staff reported that a land use plan amendment would have to be approved by the Board of Directors. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the land use plan amendment and to recommend approval of the PCD, subject to the Board of Directors approving an ordinance to permit single -use PCD's. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 c November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -3862-C NAME: PARKWAY VILLAGE -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Chenal Parkway, north of the Pride Valley Rd. intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEMS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9601 I-630, Exit 7 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 227-1744 374-1666 AREA: 78 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Retirement Village PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE AND PROPOSAL: The PRD for the Parkway Village retirement village was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 13, 1982, and was established by the Board of Directors in Ordinance No. 14,274 on August 3, 1982. The originally approved site plan was conceptual for much of the future development area, and subsequent to the original approval, there have been amendments to the original PRD in order to accommodate development in the future development area. A part of the originally approved site plan included the health care center, and, with this application, an addition to the health care center is proposed. Also, to provide access to the northern portion of the site for heavy construction traffic, a temporary roadway was constructed along the northern boundary of the site. Because of complaints from abutting property owners to the north, a time limit for removal of the temporary roadway and a return of the area to its former condition was set and agreed to by Baptist Medical Systems officials, the affected property owners and the St. Charles Neighborhood Association, and the City. That date was March 1, 1995. The current proposal, then, is for approval of an addition to the health care center, and for an extension of the date for removal of the temporary access road to January 1, 1996. The health care center addition is proposed to be accomplished in two phases over a 5 -year time period, with the initial phase of construction to begin immediately. it will increase the number of rooms of the health care center by 10 to 12 patient rooms in each phase, with an increase in floor area of November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C approximately 5,000 square feet in each phase. The construction of the addition will be similar to the existing construction, and will be one story. The new addition will be not closer to the north property line than 125 feet. - A . PROPOSALIREOUES-T-: --- - - Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of an amendment to the existing PRD is requested in order for an addition to be made the existing health care center, and for an extension until January 1, 1996 for removal of the temporary access road along the north boundary of the PRD site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is being developed as a retirement community, with much of the central core area having been developed over the past 14 years. An area along Loyola Dr. to the east of the developed area, has not been developed. Much of the area west of the current developed area is undeveloped. The existing zoning of the site is PRD. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the temporary construction access road is to be removed prior to March 1, 1995; 2) stormwater detention and boundary survey information are required; and, 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction. Water Works comments that additional on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer is available on the site. Wastewater Utility must be contacted prior to construction. Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that additional fire hydrants may be required for this addition. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for buffer and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. 2 { November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the request is in the Chenal District, that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends illMirlt-i--Ramily-''—us-es . There--ter-e no—l-and—nse is -stye -s . - The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that: 1) the portion of the site which is being dealt with needs to be shown enlarged, and a detailed site plan needs to be provided; 2) the site plan needs to show the areas for landscaping; 3) any proposed lighting on the north side of the building needs to be designated, and the bleedover must be controlled; 4) a cross section through and treatment of the cut along the north side of the building must be provided. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed addition to the health care center is a relatively minor addition within the context of the whole project, and the separation from the residential uses to the north will be 125 feet. The temporary construction road along the north boundary of the site, however, is a nuisance to the residents which abut it, and there was agreement among all parties involved that the roadway would be removed by March 1, 1995. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the addition to the health care center, but recommends that the agreed -to date of March 1, 1995, and the agreed -to conditions, be adhered to for removal of the temporary construction roadway. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe white, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. The discussion outline was reviewed with Mr. white, and the Committee reviewed the proposed site plan. Mr. White related that the needed exhibit would be provided, and that the deficiencies would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the application, indicating that the request involved two issues: the request to construct an addition to the 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C existing nursing home facility, and the request to extend the use of the temporary construction roadway until January, 1996. Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., represented the applicant. Mr. Daters presented an overview of the history ---of t -he -Par -kw y -Vel -l -age -PRD and o -f -the praposa-1bef-ore the -- - --- --- Commission. Mr, Earl Paul, Vice -President of Baptist Medical System, reviewed with the Commission the types of uses presently making up the PRD, and reviewed the requested amendment to the PRD. Mr. William Miller, a resident of Parkway Village, spoke in support of the request. He explained that he takes daily walks within the Village, and feels that construction traffic going through the Village would be dangerous to the residents who drive and walk in the area. Ms. Virginia Queen, introducing herself as the chairperson of the Parkway Village Residents' Council, spoke in support of the request. She indicated that Parkway Village is made up of over 400 older citizens, and that the proposal to continue the use of the construction drive along the north property line is beneficial to the safety of these older citizens. Ms. Ann Borg, Executive Directors of the St. Charles Community Association, spoke in opposition to the request to extend the length of time during which the temporary construction roadway may be used. She said that the location of the roadway affects property values of the homes in St. Charles which abut the area of the roadway. She presented a petition, signed, she said, by 51 residents of the street which abut the construction drive, who are in opposition to the requested extension of time for use of the drive. She related that she had a videotape which shows the area of the construction drive and of the abutting properties, and offered to play the tape for the Commissioners, if the Commission wished to view it. She said that the Association does not oppose the request for an addition to the nursing home. Ms. Neoma Rowell, who identified herself as a Realtor with Rainey Realty, spoke in opposition to the extension of time for use of the temporary construction roadway, saying that it affects the marketability of the homes which abut it. Mr. Bruce Swinburne, identifying himself as a property owner of a home which abuts the area in which the construction drive is located, spoke in opposition to the extension of time being granted for the drive's use. He said that construction trucks use the drive very early in the morning, and that other vehicles, possibility Parkway Village security personnel, turn around behind his and his wife's home late at night. He urged the 4 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C Commission not to change the agreed -to date of March 1, 1995, for Parkway Village to discontinue use of the construction drive. Mr. Marlow Small, indicating that his and his family's residence abuts the construction roadway area, said that the roadway is a - nu-i-s-ance-. —H-�--sa-id—that ther-e— are—velicles--whic--h—us-e—the—r-oadwa-y ---- - at all hours of the day and night, and that, according to the police, burglars which recently burglarized a next-door neighbor's home, used the driveway for access to the rear of the home. Ms. Wendy Allen complained that the required buffer areas behind her home, which separates her property and Parkway Village uses, is being encroached upon. She related that she had recently noted a bulldozer in the buffer, and that the operator had told her that his instructions were to clear the area. She said that she had called Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, and that encroachment in the buffer area had not resumed. She said that in most of the area south of the St. Michael Dr. - LaSalle Dr., the buffer area is not planted, and that there are no plantings which provide buffering or a barrier between the construction traffic and the rear yards of abutting properties. Mr. Doug Smith, identifying himself as a Realtor and a member of the St. Charles Property Owners' Association, spoke in opposition to the request to extend the length of time for use of the construction drive. Mr. Harry Blair, who identified his residence as one fronting on St. Michael Dr. and whose rear yard abuts the area of the construction driveway, spoke in opposition to the continued use of the driveway beyond the March 1, 1995 deadline. He said that when he bought his home, he had known that there were no drives provided for in the approved PRD site plan, and that Parkway Village is violating the terms of the PRD by constructing and using the driveway in its present location. Mr. Vic Bolton, identifying himself as owning property which abuts the area of the construction drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal to continue using the driveway beyond the agreed -to March 1, 1995 deadline. He said that use of the temporary driveway has gone on long enough. Mr. Byron Holmes, identifying himself as owning a home which faces S. Michael Dr. and which backs up to the area occupied by the temporary construction drive, said that the home which had been referred to earlier as one that had been burglarized was his home, and that he opposed the continued use or presence of the drive. Mr. Jamie Harrison indicated that he had no further information to present, but supported his neighbors' in their opposition to 5 November 25, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3862-C the continued use of the driveway along the rear of their properties. Mr. Charlie Miller said that he and his wife would give up their three minutes each of time in order for the videotape which had ---been--al-luded to eaxller--to—b-e play -ed_ The videotape, which had been referred to by Ms. Ann Borg, was played, which showed the construction drive, trucks using it and Loyola Dr., and the abutting residential properties. Commissioner Willis suggested that hours of use of the driveway be imposed; that, possibly, a caution light be erected to warn drivers of trucks which turn onto or from the construction drive from or onto Loyola Dr.; and that fencing and buffering be required to separate the Parkway Village use area from the residential uses to the north. Mr. Daters requested that the proposal to extend the time for use of the construction driveway beyond the March 1, 1995 deadline be withdrawn, and that only the approval of the addition to the nursing home be considered. He indicated that, over the next few weeks, Baptist Medical System officials would meet with representatives and residents of the neighborhood to see if there was anything that could be done to make use of the drive acceptable to the neighbors. With Mr. Dater's amendment to the request deleting the request to extend the time for use of the construction drive, a motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PRD to permit the construction of the addition to the nursing home. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. N. November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -4135-A NAME: GAINES STREET AND W. 24TH. STREET -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of S. Gaines St. and W. 24th. St. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: GAINES STREET REDEVELOPMENT CORP. WILLIAM WIEDOWER 200 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1650 1012 W. 2nd. St. Little Rock, AR 72 Little Rock, AR 72 372-5659 375-8252 AREA: 0.24 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-5 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 6 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PRD in order to develop an existing home and outbuilding for multi -family residential use. The applicant proposes to remodel an existing 2 -story residence to create two apartments, one up stairs and one down, and to remodel the existing outbuilding, which has served as a garage, as a separate apartment unit. The applicant states that the organization has purchased two other homes in the same block, and is remodeling these homes to provide two apartments in each structure. The subject property contains the garage structure which is proposed to be remodeled as an apartment, providing three residential uses on the property. The applicant states that the primary residential structure on the site has been used as a multi -family residence for most of its life, and that the developer proposes to convert what is now a number of small units into one unit on each floor. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for the establishment of a PRD is requested. No variances or waivers are requested. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4135-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently developed. It contains a single primary residential structure, plus an outbuilding which has beeir used for a garage . The gara-ge s t-ructure—enc roaches approximately 0.6 feet into the alley right-of-way. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the owner must correct the encroachment of the garage onto the alley right-of-way; 2) alley improvements, involving construction of one-half of a 17 foot pavement width, with a proper apron, will be required; and, 3) the existing sidewalks will be required to be improved and repaired, and handicap access ramps must be installed at the intersection. Water Works has no comment on the item. Wastewater comments that a 611 sewer main is located in the alley. Arkansas Power and Light Co. had no comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that, with the exception of allowing some flexibility for traffic visibility, a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the entire northern property line. After parking and vehicular use areas are defined, some perimeter and building landscaping will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that the site plan must be more than a survey of the existing site; it must deal with the proposal for improving the alley and for making the repairs to the existing sidewalks; with parking for residents' vehicles; with landscaping and buffering; etc. Provision for abating the problem of the encroachment of the garage into the alley right-of-way must be made. E { November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4135-A The Planning staff comments that the request is in the Central City Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single -Family" uses. The Planning staff questions the desirability of having a multi -family use north of 24th. St. along Gaines. It is noted that the property is zoned R-5. According to Section 36-259, the requirements for R-5 are: for lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 1 acre, the lot area shall provide a minimum of 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. The proposed PRD site is 10,500 square feet, and, with 3 dwellings on the site, the lot area per dwelling unit is 3,500 square feet. E. ANALYSIS• The problem with this proposal is that of the encroachment of the garage building into the alley right-of-way, and the required setback from the rear property line not being met. The use does not appear to be in conflict with the existing zoning, and staff questions the need to proceed with a PRD application. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the application be withdrawn. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) No one representing the applicant was present, and there was no discussion of the item, except for a brief description of the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that it has been confirmed that the zoning of the site is R-4, not R-5, as shown on the zoning map included with the agenda and reflected in the write-up. Three dwelling units on the site, then, are not permitted by right in the R-4 zoning district, staff reported, and the applicant has chosen a PRD to get the approval needed. Staff reported that the City Attorney has noted that the issue of the encroachment into the alley by the existing garage building, which is to be remodeled as the third dwelling unit, must be remedied, and that at least a portion of the alley needs to be abandoned. An adequate site plan must be submitted, staff related, which addresses all staff concerns. K3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4135-A No one was present to represent the applicant. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 November 25, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -4411-A NAME: PLEASANT RIDGE SQUARE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and Pleasant Ridge Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: LOU SCHICKEL WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2723 Foxcroft, Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72207 Little Rock, AR 72201 225-7807 374-1666 AREA: 12.83 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2, C-2, & PCD PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center and Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 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. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a mixed use "neighborhood commercial" shopping center and an accompanying office development. The applicant explains that there is demand to meet the growing need for "high quality" neighborhood commercial development, properly buffered from the residential area with office development. The site is a 12.83 acre tract. Of this area, 11.48 acres is proposed to be developed as the shopping center. The proposed structure is 97,680 square feet, and 463 parking spaces are provided. The remaining 1.35 acre tract is to have 10,000 square feet of office building located on it, and an additional 50 parking spaces will be provided. The developer proposes a maximum buildable area for the office development, and indicates that the development may involve construction of one or two building, with a maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet; a building "footprint" is not provided. The uses proposed for the shopping center are all uses by right in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts, except that there are to be no service stations, auto glass or muffler shops, convenience stores, or car washes within the scope of the PCD. The uses proposed for the office use area are all uses by right in the 0-2 and 0-3 zoning district. The applicant states that the access to November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A the shopping center area will be from Highway 10; that the existing E -Z Mart building is to be razed, and the primary access to the center will be taken at its former location at the existing traffic signal. The access to the office development will be taken from Pleasant Ridge Rd., an existing commercial --street .—fiti-ght- ,of—way—f-o-r—Highway 1--0—and or—Falrv-iew Rd. wil-1—bp dedicated, as required, and Master Street Plan improvements will be made for Fairview Rd. An easement will be provided at the main entrance (at the E -Z Mart location) for installation of the traffic signal sensor. The required buffer along the Highway 10 frontage is 40 feet; it is proposed that, since no additional street improvements are required, this buffer width be measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the location of the right-of-way line when additional right-of-way is dedicated with this development. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of the PCD. A variance is requested to be approved for the required buffer along Highway 10 to be measured from the existing right-of-way line in lieu of from the right-of-way line to be established by the dedication of additional right-of-way. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is primarily undeveloped and is partially wooded. Much of the western portion of the site is cleared. The site includes the location of the present E -Z Mart at the Southridge Rd. intersection. The topography rises to the south, with the ground elevation rising from an elevation of approximately 490 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) along Highway 10 to over 550 feet MSL along the south boundary of the site. The existing zoning of the tract includes areas which are zoned R-2, C-1, and PCD. The existing E -Z Mart site is the location of the PCD zoning. The C-1 site lies along the Pleasant Ridge Rd. frontage. The zoning to the south and east, on the south side of Highway 10, is exclusively R-2. To the west are R-2 and 0-3 zoned areas. On the south side of Highway 10, between the site and Highway 10, are two sites, one zoned C-1, the other, PCD. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comment that: 1) Cantrell Rd. requires dedication of additional right-of-way to bring one-half of street dedication to 55 feet; 2) Fairview Rd. will require dedication of additional right-of-way to provide one-half of a 50 foot right-of-way; 3) when the additional required 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A right-of-way is dedicated, or if the area at the E -Z Mart is to be dedicated to the City in order to install a traffic light sensor, proof of site mitigation for the underground fuel tanks will be required prior to dedication of the right-of-way; 4) Master Street Plan street improvements wiH be regwi-rec--an—Fa ry-rew Read;---5)-a--s-ketch-gradi-ng and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction, and A NPDES permit will be required; 6) 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.); 7) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 8) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required; 9) a 60 foot by 100 foot dedication or easement will be required for the entrance drive off Cantrell Rd.; 10) the entrance drive will be required to be 36 feet wide; and 11) traffic signal modifications are the responsibility of the developer/owner. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. 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 the exterior boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, as noted for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department comments that numerous on-site fire hydrants will be required for this site. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet the Highway 10 Overlay Ordinance requirements, with the exception of two small areas along the eastern and southern site perimeters. In these instances, they fall short of the 25 foot width requirement by 13 feet to 17 feet. Trees will be required within the Hwy. 10 landscape buffer with an average spacing of 20 feet. A berm, wall, or dense evergreen plantings will be required to screen the vehicular use areas as viewed 42 inches above the adjacent elevation of Highway 10. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. A 6 foot high opaque screen, either a good neighbor fence or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen this site 3 ( l November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A from the residential properties to the south. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the large slope must be defined. Because of the proposed large cut, the Public Works Dept. will require terracing to lessen the impact. Trees will be required to be planted within the terrae-ing--areas . R-a-rsed-c-ur-b-ing-,f,—nc-kncr-, er - protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use area from fallen rocks and erosion. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to Commercial in order to allow development of a community level shopping center. E. ANALYSIS• The applicant states that the shopping center is a "neighborhood commercial" development; the Planning staff interprets the proposed use to be a "community level shopping center". It is both in conflict with the Land Use Plan as a commercial use, and it cannot be justified as a neighborhood commercial development. Public Works has indicated that no widening of Highway 10 is required at this time, and the applicant has asked for a variance to permit the measurement of the required buffer width to be taken from the existing right-of-way, in lieu of from the location of the right-of-way line when the additional right-of-way is dedicated. If, in the future, Highway 10 is widened, the width of the landscape buffer will be lessened by the amount of improvements made. The technical requirements of the submittal have been met. The proposed number of parking spaces is in conformance with the regulations. The applicant has agreed to the requirements of staff for the cut area along the south boundary of the site. Requirement, however, for site lighting and signage need to be discussed and established. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the PCD because the proposal is not in conformance with the Land Use Plan, and because the commercial development is more community oriented instead of neighborhood oriented. 4 � f November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering - - fes , rev-iewed--w th taff�-the comment-s—conta-ined in --the discussion outline. There was discussion regarding the requested variance for the buffer along Highway 10, regarding the various Public Works comments, and regarding the various Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments. Mr. White 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. 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 E November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A 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-; ? n 1 9_ ,—the1and us -e pian bad b an, zp_dated , 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 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's 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 0 November 2y, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A 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--.neighho-rho-o-d ' s—concerns—regardi.ng— d hero- 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 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 50m 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. 7 I November 2y, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A 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 --- supgor-t o -f the proposed—de-velopment-,—bu-t—than the neighborho A 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 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. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A 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 -- --i-ngl a=u--, a P -GD ' -s wou ld—c l-a-r-i-f-y—the--s-i— uat-i on . 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 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. 0 1 t November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-A 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 var? ante for the driveway—location an woodland -Rd- The motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 10 November 25, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -4411-B 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 to the south is best accomplished by maintaining an undisturbed area along this south boundary. The applicant proposes to November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B dedicate the required 15 feet of additional right-of-way along Highway 10, but wishes to measure the required 40 foot wide Highway 10 landscape buffer from the location of the existing right-of-way line, in lieu of from the new line when the right- of-way is dedicated. The site design also causes the driveway onto Woodland Dr. to be located approximately 70 feet from Highway 10, and a variance from the requirement that driveways be at least 100 feet from intersections is required. The applicant proposes to dedicate the required additional right-of-way on Woodland Dr. and to make the required street improvements on this street. The applicant states that site lighting will be directed to the vehicular use areas, and light fixtures will be below the elevation of the required fence along the south property line. Signage, the applicant states, will conform to the Highway 10 standards. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the Coulson Oil PCD. Variances from the requirement that the buffer width be measured from the right-of-way line, subsequent to the dedication of additional right-of-way, and from the requirement that driveway access points be a minimum of 100 feet from an intersecting street are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain rises from an elevation of approximately 497 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the northwest corner of the tract to 530-535 feet at the south property line. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The area to the west is zoned R-2, as is the area to the south and east. Across Highway 10 to the north is R-2 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) dedication of an additional 12.5 feet of right-of-way for Woodland Rd. will be required; 2) Master Street Plan improvements will be required on Woodland Rd.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required before construction may begin; 4) the cut planned for the rear of the property will require terracing, according to the recommendations of Sec. 29-190 (Every 10 feet of vertical cut requires a 10 foot terrace, with plantings.); 5) ditches will be required to intersect drainage on each of the terraces; 6) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required; and, 7) the driveway shown on Woodland Rd. is less than 100' from the K November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued FILE NO.: Z -4411-B intersection, and this driveway must be moved to the south to conform to the Ordinance requirements. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements, pursuant to the comment for the preliminary plat item. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review reports that the areas set aside for landscaping and buffers meet the Hwy. 10 Overlay requirements with the exception of a portion of the western perimeter which falls 12 feet short of the 25 foot width requirement. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen this site from the residential property to the south. This screen can either be a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. Trees are required along Highway 10 with an average spacing of 20 feet. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. An 8 foot high opaque wall or wood fence will be required around 3 sides of the dumpster. A cross section showing the proposed method of handling the slope area must be provided. Because of the degree of cut, Public Works will be requiring terracing to lessen the impact. Trees will be required to be planted within the terracing areas. Raised curbing, fencing, grading, or other physical protection should be provided at the slope base to protect the vehicular use areas from falling rocks and erosion. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning Staff comments that the request is in the River Mountain District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends that the area be developed as Single Family uses. The Planning staff adds that, at this time, staff can find no justification for amending the Plan from Single Family to Commercial in order to allow development of a community level development. The Planning staff adds that, if the shopping center use is not approved, and only the gas station is considered, then there is no justification for the use which could lead to the stripping along Highway 10. 3 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4411-B Im F. 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 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (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 6". November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (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 num�r}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 0 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (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 d8di—SD n on the proposed rezoning -be de end 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 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (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 E November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (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. 0 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z -4422-B NAME: MARKHAM PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of W. Markham St., approximately 300 feet west of Meadowbrook Dr. DEVELOPER: Donald Kirk KIRK PROPERTIES 9821A W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72205 221-0303 AREA: 2.28 ACRES ZONING• PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Shopping Center A request for a rezoning from C-3 and R-2 was heard by the Planning Commission on April 9, 1985, and a recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors established the PCD on May 7, 1985 in Ordinance No. 14,876. The approved site plan required a fence along the entire length of the west property line, and landscaping along the south and southeast property lines and at the southeast corner of the building. Since the PCD was approved the zoning and use of the property abutting the west property line has changed, and there is C-3 zoning along the north 200 feet ± of the west property line. Over the years, the landscaping has deteriorated along the south property line, and has been removed at the southeast property line and at the southeast corner of the building. The Zoning Enforcement staff notified the applicant that the site is not in conformance with the approved site plan, and the applicant proposes that, in lieu of reinstalling the fence and landscaping according to the approved site plan, he would seek approval: 1) to omit the fence where the site abuts C-3 zoning; 2) to omit the landscaping at the southeast property line and at the southeast corner of the building; and, 3) to leave the existing landscaping along the south property line "as is". November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4422-B The applicant states that owners of property to the west use his property for access to the rear of their buildings; that the telephone company would, if the fence were reinstalled, loose access to their junction box which is immediately west of the property line; and that access to his property to the fire hydrant, which is immediately west of the property line, would be lost. The applicant states that there are large oak trees and pine trees along the south property line which have hampered the growth of the required plantings; that the required plantings have been installed twice, and that they have died both times. The applicant states that due to a drainage problem, the landscape buffer at the southeast property line must be eliminated, and that trucks turning have encroached into this area. The area has, consequently, been paved. The applicant states that, due to trucks turning, the landscape area at the southeast corner of the rear building, has been eliminated. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amendment to the approved PCD for approval of a revised site plan which eliminates a portion of the fence located along the west property line and eliminates certain landscaping requirements which were required as part of the originally approved site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is fully developed. The zoning to the west is C-3. The remainder of the area, to the east, south, and across W. Markham St. to the north, is R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that there are apparently no Public Works issues to resolve. Water Works has no objection to the item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and no adverse effect is anticipated. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the west boundary of the site, along the property north -south line at the southeast corner of the tract, and extending northward from this line between the two buildings out to Markham St. 0 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4422-B Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that all interior driveways must be maintained with a minimum width of 201. Landscape review comments that an 8 foot high wall or wooden fence must be provided around 3 sides of both dumpsters. At the time this site was developed the Landscape Ordinance required a 4' wide landscape strip along the western and eastern site perimeters. Unless a platted access easement is provided along the western driveway area, the western landscape strip will be required by the Landscape Ordinance. Five trees are required in the landscape islands within the parking area, and additional evergreen screening shrubs within the landscape strip along Markham St. are required by the Landscape Ordinance. City Beautiful Commission approval would be required to delete the Landscape Ordinance requirements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The area to the west has developed as a commercial use area, and the fence in the area which abuts the C-3 zoned land is not required at this time. There are landscaping issues to be resolved, as cited above. E. ANALYSIS• The requirements of the current Landscape Ordinance will require installation of landscaping in certain areas, as noted above. The proximity of residential uses to the south and east make proper buffering important. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deleting the fence requirement where the property abuts C-3 land, but recommends denial of the request to leave the site landscaping "as is". Staff recommends that the landscaping be installed as required by the Landscape Ordinance. 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4422-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Other than a brief review of the proposal by staff, there was no discussion, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request; however, the applicant nor anyone to represent him was present. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 November 25, 1994 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5907 NAME: KIDSPORT -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of Autumn Rd., approximately 0.15 mile south of Financial Center Parkway DEVELOPER: ROY ROGERS ENGINEER: MARK BUERKLE, AGENT WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1501 N. University Ave. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 664-0104 374-1666 AREA: 2.22 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Mixed Uses, including: Private School and Day Care Center; Dance Studio; and Commercial (inside) Amusement PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a variance to permit two driveway entrances to the site to be within 300 feet of each other. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop a "Kidsports Fun and Fitness Center". The center, as proposed, is for "children of all ages and physical abilities", and the classes are "non -skill performing and non-competitive, self-confidence and self-esteem building" which are designed to teach children that fitness is fun. The curriculum helps children enhance their strength, flexibility, agility, coordination, and balance. The center offers a full dance instructional program. The facility provides U. S. G. F. regulation gymnastics equipment, and classes in recreational and competitive gymnastics and cheerleading are conducted by certified coaches. The program includes after school care, and an opportunity is provided for children to complete school homework assignments and to participate in the full range of classes and utilize the equipment and facilities provided. The facility is available for special events, such as birthday parties, "lock -ins", swim parties, team parties, etc. There are summer and holiday camps, "kids nite out" programs, dances, and more. A game room is provided. There is a snack bar November 25, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5907 included in the facility. The normal hours of operation are from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Mondays to Fridays, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM on Sundays. As indicated, there are special events which will last later than these normal closing hours, and on some Saturday nights, there are over -night programs. The facility is proposed to be developed on a 2.22 acre tract. A 20,000 square foot, 20 -foot tall building is planned as the initial phase of development, with an additional 5,000 square feet expansion area provided. Parking for 109 vehicles is provided. The applicant proposes two driveway entrances off Autumn Rd. to the property in order to facilitate ingress and egress, and to reduce stacking of vehicles waiting to enter or leave the premises. Dedication of the required right -o -way and construction of the required Master Street Plan improvements are anticipated. There will be exterior lighting attached to the building, as well as parking lot lighting. Dumpster servicing will be limited to daylight hours. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a POD for the Kidsports Fun and Fitness Center. Approval of a variance from the regulation which requires drive approaches to be separated from one another by a minimum of 300 feet is requested, in order for the site to contain two drive approaches which are 210 feet apart. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by three houses, but much of the site is overgrown and wooded. The high point of the property is at the northwest corner of the tract, and there is approximately a 23 foot drop from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the tract. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning to the east, south, and across Autumn Rd. to the northeast. To the north is a C-3 tract occupied by the Pinnacle Pointe Hospital. To the south, in the R-2 zoned tract, is the new Federal Bureau of Investigation building. Across Autumn Rd. to tFie southwest, is -an -0-3 -tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the Ordinance allows only one driveway for the amount of frontage of this site, so a redesign of the access driveway off Autumn Rd. to provide one driveway will be required; 2) right-of-way dedication and street improvements are required for Autumn Rd.; 3) a 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5907 grading permit, per Sec. 29-186, is required; 4) street plans, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. 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 a 5 foot easement along the north, east, and south boundary of the site. The Fire Department comments that regulation City "No Parking; Tow -Away" signs are to be posted around the perimeter of the building. An on-site fire hydrant may be required for this site. Landscape review comments that a portion of the southern buffer drops below the full requirements of 16 feet, but meets the minimum requirement. The landscape islands within the parking lot are short of the interior landscape requirement by 297 sf. A 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking area and the building is required. A 6' high opaque screen along the southern and eastern property lines will be necessary. This screen may either be a wood fence with its structural supports facing inward, or be dense evergreen plantings. Curb and gutter, or another approved border to protect plantings, will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the request is in the I-430 Planning District, and the adopted Land Use Plan recommends Office uses for the area. The Land Use Pian in this area has been violated massively over the last year, with major changes in use being approved. The Planning staff believes that this must stop, and cannot support further erosion of the original plan. Section 36-452 states that "the POD district is intended to accomodate...mixed use developments combining... commercial and offices uses...." The permitted uses include office 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5907 uses and limited commercial uses. Section 36-279, 36-280, and 36-281, the office district regulations, all permit private schools and day care centers and dance studios. Ordinance No. 16,577 states that "industrial, commercial, office, or multi -family properties... shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage." E. ANALYSIS: All technical requirements for the submittal have been met. There does, however, need to be discussion on the site lighting to assure that parking lot and building lighting do not produce bleedover to adjoining properties. Many of the proposed uses are the private school/daycare/dance studio uses, which are consistent with the office zoning districts. Much of the use, however, will fall into the commercial amusement category, since a game room and snack bar are included and special events for dances, "lock -ins", "kids night out", etc. are proposed. The applicant fees strongly that one driveway access point, as is required by the Ordinance, is insufficient for the site and for the traffic conditions generated by the use. With a great many children being picked up within a very short time frame, one driveway will be unsafe, causing vehicle stacking on Autumn Rd. or in the parking lot, and causing traffic movement conflicts. The applicant states that the driveways on abutting properties are in place, and that there is not the probability that these properties will need other driveway access points which might be located close to their property lines, and, consequently, would be too close to the applicant's access points to be safe. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the POD application, since the proposed commercial uses are in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Representatives of the developer and of the engineering firm were present. Mr. Mark Buerkle, with Rector Phillips Morse, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, were present. Mr. Buerkle and Mr. White reviewed with the Committee and staff the various comments contained in the discussion outline. There was discussion with the Public Works staff regarding the requirement that there be only one driveway access point on the property, with Mr. Buerkle and Mr. White indicating that a 4 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5907 variance would need to be sought to permit the two driveways as proposed. Mr. Buerkle and Mr. White indicated that the required additional information would be forthcoming, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request, and pointed out that the applicant is seeking a variance from the ordinance provision which limits the number of driveway access points along a street frontage to, in this case, one driveway. Mr. Mark Burkle, identifying himself as representing the applicant, indicated that Mr. Roy Rogers will be developer of the proposed building. He indicated that the Kidsports operation is a fitness center, education center, physical enhancement center for children of 3 years old to, normally, 13 years of age. There are, however, some older teenagers who are involved in, primarily, the gymnastics program, who are clients of the program. He said that the proposed program consists of a mixture of uses which are permitted in the office zoning districts; that, consequently, a POD had been requested, and that the commercial uses are very limited in scope and in floor area of the building. Ms. Glenda Pigue identified herself as the owner -operator of the Kidsports facility in Benton, Arkansas, and the proposed operator of the Little Rock Kidsports facility. She said that Kidsports is an international fun and fitness program, and is a franchised operation. Ms. Lea Oken outlined the various types of activities and programs operated at the Kidsports facility, and said that there is a great need for the types of programs offered at Kidsports. She said that approximately 500-600 children per day utilize the facility, depending on the day and season. She said that a game room is provided, which has approximately a dozen game machines, with a room area of 600 square feet. She said that, at the Benton Kidsports, a seminar on kids games and fun activities was held for adults, and they would anticipate holding such activities involving adults at the Little Rock facility. On a daily basis, though, she said that ninth graders are the normal upper age limit of participants. She said that at Benton, they held a senior prom, but young persons of that age are not the usual attendees. She assured the Commission that children are not allowed to leave the building when they are participating in activities. Mr. Burkle said that the dances, "lock -ins", parties, etc. are not the routine activities for Kidsports; the dance lessons, gymnastics, daycare, etc. are the daily routine -type activities. 5 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5907 He said that there are few residences which would be affected by the proposed development. Mr. Tim Daters, of White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineer, said that the developer was in the process of discussing with the City Engineering office whether to pursue the two driveway access points, as shown on the site plan which had been presented, or to re -design the access to comply with the ordinance which allows only one access point. He said that the owner -operator would prefer the two driveway access points for proper and safe access to and from the site, especially with the number of children which will be coming and going within short time -frames. He said that the site plan, as presented, shows approximately 240 feet from centerline of driveway to centerline of driveway. He said that there are no driveways to the north along Autumn Rd., along the Pennical Pointe Hospital frontage of their site, and that, to the south, the nearest driveway is approximately 150 feet from the centerline of the south Kidsports driveway. He indicated that the applicant wished to pursue the requested driveway variance. Mr. Mark Burkle said that any subsequent use of the building, if Kidsports failed or was no longer the tenant, would be office uses. He said that when the future building addition is accomplished, the uses in the added space would occupy no more than the proportion of floor space occupied in the initial phase of development. The subsequent phase would take place as the demand for space increases. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the POD, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. N November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z -4933-C NAME: WORTHEN BANK BRANCH, CHENAL PARKWAY -- AMENDED SHORT - FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• WORTHEN BANK MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS C/O Mark Buerkle, Agent 900 W. Markham St. Rector Phillips Morse Little Rock, AR 72201 P. O. Box 7300 371-0272 Little Rock, AR 72217 664-7807 AREA: 1.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Bank PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: On November 20, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a PCD for the site; on December 26, 1990, in Ordinance No. 15,990, the Board of Directors established the PCD. The PCD which was established included the land for an 8.8 acre site with three lots. On one of the lots, the One Source store which is currently located on the site, was constructed. The originally approved PCD includes approval of a site plan for this store. On the two other lots, included in the PCD as outparcels, no uses or site plans were proposed. There was a requirement that any subsequent use proposed for the outparcels he approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The applicant, then, proposes an amended PCD for development of a 1.46 acre outparcel lot for construction of a branch bank facility. A 2,466 square foot bank building, with a 2,340 square foot drive-thru canopy is planned. Parking for 20 vehicles is provided, as well as maneuvering and stacking space for vehicles at the drive-thru facility. One access point to Kanis Rd. is provided; the only other access point is to the common internal driveway shared with the One Source store. One monument sign is to be constructed at the Kanis Rd.-Chenal Parkway intersection. The hours of operation are from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Mondays thru 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4933-C Friday, and 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction of the required Master Street Plan improvements on Kanis Road are proposed; however, a waiver from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the lot is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD for the development of a branch banking facility on an outparcel of a previously approved PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently vacant, and is an outparcel of a PCD established in 1990. The existing zoning of the tract is PCD, with the remainder of the approved PCD being located on the tract's east and south borders. To the west, across Kanis Rd., and to the north, across Chenal Parkway, the land is zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) one-half street improvements for Kanis Rd. will be required (The Master Street Plan shows this street to be a collector street, and the street width is to be 360.); 2) the developer needs to contact Pulaski County Public Works Dept. and talk with the Floodplain Administrator (at 370-8620) for base flood elevation data; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required; 4) stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required. Water Works comments that a pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00 per foot applies for connections on Kanis Rd, and an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies, in addition to normal connection charges, in this area. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with an easement, 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. approved the submittal without comment. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4933-C The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Landscape review comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appear to meet Ordinance requirements. The interior landscaping, however, should be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-282 requires sidewalks be constructed on both sides of commercial streets. Kanis Rd. is a commercial street; therefore, construction of the sidewalk along the development's Kanis Rd. frontage is required. All technical requirements of the submittal have been met. A discussion of site lighting needs to be conducted. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed development is consistent with the PCD zoning of the site, and all requirements for street construction, except for the one waiver which is being requested, and site improvements have been met. The applicant states that the isolated location of the site makes pedestrian traffic along Kanis Rd. remote, and states that, due to the surface drainage in the right-of-way along Kanis Rd., a sidewalk would be difficult to provide. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PCD site plan, and the Planning staff recommends approval of the sidewalk waiver. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was represented by Mr. Mark Buerkle, with Rector Phillips Morse. Staff presented the request and outlined the deficiencies and concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Buerkle responded that all deficiencies would be remedied, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the proposed development is located on an outparcel of the One Source PCD previously approved. As such, the proposal is for an amendment to the previously approved PCD. Staff pointed out that the 3 I November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4933-C applicant is requesting a wavier of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site. Mr. Mark Burkle, with Rector Phillips Morse, represented the applicant, and outlined the proposed development. He reiterated the request for a waiver of the sidewalk along Kanis, saying that, because of no sidewalks being required along Chenal Blvd., no sidewalks existing south of the site along the One Source frontage on Kanis Rd., and because of a large drainage ditch which must occupy the area between Kanis Rd. and the applicant's property line, the applicant maintains that a sidewalk is inappropriate. A sidewalk along the Worthen frontage, he said, would be an isolated section which would not continue to the north or to the south. Commissioner Walker pointed out that Kanis Rd. is being diverted to the north at the south edge of the One Source site, and that the classification of the section of Kanis Rd. abutting the One Source and Worthen Bank sites on the west is being changed from a minor arterial to a collector street. He said that the pedestrian traffic along this section of street, at least on the east side of the street, would be minimal. He said he supported development of a pedestrian circulation plan for areas, and, where sidewalks are omitted, that alternate pedestrian circulation provisions be made. He suggested that, if the land owner to the west, across Kanis Rd. were to develop that land, that a sidewalk might be more appropriate on that side of Kanis Rd. Mr. David Scherer, or the Public Works staff, said that too many sidewalks had been waived, and that the City is required to build them at a later date. He said that the Public Works staff does not support waiving the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in support of the Public Works staff recommendation on the sidewalk. She said that sidewalks are important, and urged the Commission not to waive the requirement unless there is a real reason to do so. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PCD. The motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to recommend waiver of the sidewalk requirement, but the the vote of 1 aye, 8 nays, 2 absent, and 0 C;I approval of the motion failed with abstentions. November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: 5-867-00 NAME: CHENAL APARTMENTS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of Chenal Parkway, approximately 0.5 mile north of the Kanis Rd. intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: JOHN R. CARMICHAEL WESTWOOD RESIDENTIAL COMPANY WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5950 Berkshire Ln. 401 S. Victory St. Suite 500, LB 43 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dallas, TX 75225 374-1666 (214) 369-9433 AREA: 17.99 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 4,000 (Boundary Street improvements, only.) ZONING: MF -24, MF -18, PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential R-2, & C-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.02 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Height of buildings from the maximum permitted in the ordinance of 35 feet to permit buildings of 40 feet in height. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a site plan for the development of a "rental apartment community" on a 17.99 acre lot. A total of 264 rental units, in 11, 3 -story buildings, is to be constructed, with a total square footage of 249,420 square feet. A 6,060 square foot, 1 -story, club house/leasing office is to be provided, with a swimming pool located at the club house. A total of 440 parking spaces is proposed for the apartment buildings, with 104 of these being provided in garage or carport enclosures. An additional 11 parking spaces is provided at the club _house/leasing office. A_ monument _sign is _proposed to be located on Chenal Parkway at its intersection with the access drive, with an additional sign to be located at the apartment community entrance off this access drive. A guard house is proposed to be erected at the entrance, and access to the community will be monitored. Since the regulations restrict the building height to 35 feet, and the 3 -story buildings are anticipated to be 40 feet in height, a variance is requested to permit the construction of the 3 -story buildings. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-867-00 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of the site plan for the Chenal Apartments rental apartment community is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of the height variance to permit construction of 40 foot high, 3 -story buildings, in lieu of the maximum allowable height of 35 foot buildings, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography is rolling, with a high point at the center of the tract rising approximately 35 feet above the south and north elevations. The existing zoning includes areas of MF -18, MF -24, C-2, and R-2 zoned land. Surrounding the site is C-2 zoned land to the north, MF -18 to the northwest, R-2 to the west, MF -24 to the south, and 0-2 across Chenal Parkway to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the base flood elevation information and minimum finish floor elevation information are required at the time a development permit is approved; and, 2) stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required. Public Works adds that the tract is outside the floodplain study area. Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies in this area, in addition to the normal connection charges. The Fire Department will need to review the plans to determine whether additional on-site fire hydrants will be required. Wastewater comments that a capacity analysis will be required, and capacity contribution fees will be assessed. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that a 15 foot easement will be required along the north, south, and west 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 requests 2 additional fire hydrants, and comments that some of the areas are lacking proper coverage. FA November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-867-00 F. Landscape review comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A 6 foot high opaque good neighbor wood fence or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen this site form the residential properties to the south and west. An 8 foot high wood fence or wall is required to screen 3 sides of each dumpster. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Zoning Regulations, Section 36-258(c) states that: "No building... shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet" in the MF -18 or MF -24 zoning districts. Building height is defined (in Section 36-2) as "the vertical distance, as measured through the central access of the building, from the elevation of the lowest finished floor level to ... the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof." The applicant proposes 3 -story buildings, which, the applicant states, will exceed the 35 - foot height limitation. Therefore, a variance of the cited regulations is requested. ANALYSIS: All technical issues relating to t the site plan have been resolved, issues remaining. The site plan regulations, except for the matter been requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: he preliminary plat and and there are no technical meets the standards of the of the variance which has Staff recommends approval of the site plan, and of the requested height variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White, the Public Works staff person, and the Committee members discussed the issue of the boundary street design, and Mr. White said that he could make the changes to meet the Public Works requirements. It was noted that the proposed street name "Village Dr." is unacceptable, since there is already a Village Dr. in Little Rock. The deficiencies cited by the Planning staff regarding proper dimensioning of the site plan and the needed information which is to be shown on the site plan were discussed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-867-00 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that there are no outstanding technical issues to resolve. The applicant, staff reported, has requested a height variance, and explained that the variance is minimal. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The item, approval of the site plan and a recommendation of approval of the height variance, was included on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 1 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.• S-1041 NAME: RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Riverfront Dr. and Jessie Dr. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: JOHN HALEY FRED CHILCOTE RIVERDALE MINI -STORAGE LLC BCCGBN ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS 875 Union Bldg. 303 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-1171 376-6671 AREA: 2.91 ACRES ZONING: I-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT• 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage None The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility on a 2.91 acre site. The proposed development involves the construction of 3 buildings totaling 48,800 square feet of floor area. A manager's office and apartment are included within one of the buildings. One access point, off Jessie Rd., is proposed, and a gate at this access point is to be locked after hours. Six parking spaces are provide, 2 at the west end of each of the three buildings. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Approval of a site plan by the Planning Commission is requested for the Riverdale Mini -Storage facility. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. The street to the west is Riverfront Dr., a public streets however, the street from which access is taken, Jessie Dr., is an existing private street. The existing zoning of the site is I-3, with I-3 zoned land to the east and south. Abutting the site to the north is 0-2 zoned land, and across Riverfront Dr. is C-3 land. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1041 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comment that: 1) a sidewalk will be required along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the site, or payment of "in -lieu" for the Parks Department's planned walk must be made; 2) the minimum finish floor elevations for this property must be at least 257.2 feet M.S.L.; 3) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required, and a development permit will be required; and, 3) stormwater detention and boundary survey information will be required. Water Works comments that a water main extension and on-site fire protection will be required. The fire hydrant shown to be relocated and the "assumed" water main are not existing in this area. The site is occupying one lot and part of another. The site must be replatted. Wastewater reports that they were unable to determine the location of the site, and are therefore unable to comment at this time. Wastewater must be contacted for further information. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that they will require a 15 foot easement along the south boundary of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments have not been received. The Fire Department will require additional fire hydrants for this site. Landscape review comments that the proposal submitted drops below the 12 foot width buffer requirement along the northern perimeter and the 27 foot width requirement along the eastern side. The minimum requirements are 8 feet and 18 feet respectively. The width provided is 6 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and eastern property lines. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The legal description of the site indicates that the proposed development occupies one lot and a portion of a another. The remainder of the partial lot has been developed. Development of this facility must include replatting of the site to include the full and partial lots. It must be noted, however, that when the partial lot is combined with the full lot in a replat, the remaining E } November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1041 portion of the partial lot (the part of the lot which has been developed) must meet ordinance standards; a substandard lot can not be created. The site plan is deficient in that the areas set aside for landscaping are to be shown. Parking spaces, including handicap parking spaces, are to be shown. On-site fire hydrants are to be located. The availability of public utilities, indicating the line size and location are to be verified with the utilities and shown correctly. Provision with the Fire Department must be made for a gate which will be locked. E. ANALYSIS• Assuming that the replatting issue can be accomplished, there are only minor deficiencies remaining, and it is anticipated that these deficiencies can be remedied. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant correcting the noted deficiencies. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Fred Chilcote, the architect on the project, was present. Mr. Chilcote reviewed the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline, and the Committee members discussed these deficiencies with staff and Mr. Chilcote. The Public Works staff discussed the sidewalk issue or, alternatively, the payment of the "in - lieu" fee for the Parks Department's Riverfront walk program. The landscaping issue was discussed with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff. Mr. Chilcote related that the needed corrections would be made. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) The item was proposed to be included on the Consent Agenda for approval; however, Commissioner Walker asked for clarification on the standards to be imposed for improvements on the Jessie Dr. frontage of the site, and the item was placed on the regular agenda. Commissioner Walker related that Jessie Dr. is a private street, but indicated that Jessie Dr. does not meet City street standards. There are no curbs and gutters along the street, and the street does not appear to comply with street standards for topography and access. He voiced his objection to an applicant 3 1 ) November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1041 not being required to make improvements on a private street as they would along a public street frontage. David Scherer, representing the Public Works Department, stated that Jessie Dr. is considered a private driveway to the businesses which take their access from it. Mr. John Haley, the applicant, indicated that all concerns raised by staff have been addressed. He said that the access to the mini -storage facility is from an internal drive -parking area, and that the access point is at the west end of the internal driveway. This, he said, would keep whatever traffic that comes to the mini -storage facility out of the internal parking area for the businesses which surround the parking area along Jessie Dr. Mr. Walker reiterated that Jessie Dr. is substandard; that the mini -storage facility will bring an increase of occasional traffic to the area; and that the private street in inadequate. He complained that the right-of-way along the Riverfront Dr. frontage is unkept. He stated that an apron which meets City standards should be required to extend from Riverfront Dr. to the applicant's property line. He said that the entrance point to the facility does not provide any stacking space for vehicles entering the property. He said that the chain link fence which is proposed to surround the project is offensive. He pointed out that the north and west frontages of the property should have opaque screening in order to comply with the Landscape Ordinance provisions. Mr. Haley responded that there is a 50-80 foot wide drainage easement which lies along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the property, and that this drainage easement is a "swampy abomination". He said that if the City would give them the authorization, they would clean up the area, and would construct the necessary curbing on Riverside Dr. Since the area is outside the limits of their property, however, they cannot make any improvements to the area. Commissioner Walker stated that the levy along the north side of the site is an adequate substitute for the buffers along the north side of the property; however, there remains a need to buffer the west frontage of the property. Because, he said, Riverfront Dr. is higher in elevation than the site, buffering of the use area is made more difficult. Buffering, he added, could be increased if the buildings had been oriented differently so that the buildings themselves provided screening, but, he conceded, he was unsure that the Commission on a Site Plan Review issue has the authority to impose these types of design requirements on the project. Bob Brown, with the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, responded that the Landscape Ordinance permits natural buffers, so that, 4 l l November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1041 indeed, the levee can meet the buffer requirements. He said that, when the plans are submitted for Building Permit review, landscaping will be required along the internal lot line along the Jessie Rd. frontage of the site, and that along the Riverfront Dr. frontage of the site, an opaque screen will be required. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 1 absent, and 1 abstention. 5 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: 5-285-T NAME: SADDLE CREEK APARTMENTS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: Approximately 0.4 mile north of Highway 10, between Chenonceau Blvd. and Patrick County Rd. DEVELOPER• RANCH PROPERTIES, INC. P. O. Box 56350 Little Rock, AR 72215 224-9600 AREA• 14.97 ACRES ZONING: MF -18 & R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 ENGINEER• WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: Deferral of the required Master Street Plan improvements for Patrick Country Road, and a waiver of the requirement to construct the bridge spanning the creek on Patrick Country Road. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a 260 -unit apartment complex on a 14.6 acre site. The site is zoned MF -18, with a 20 foot wide strip of R-2 zoned land lying along the north property line which is be used as a buffer area. The project will consist of the construction of 13 apartment buildings with a total square footage of 225,000 square feet, plus a clubhouse building and a mail building. Of the apartment buildings, 3 are to be two stories in height and 10 are to be three stories. Parking for 520 vehicles is proposed, with 260 of these space to be covered. The development is to be divided into 2 phases, with Phase I involving the construction of 9 buildings containing 188 units, and the clubhouse. Phase II involves the construction of 4 buildings containing 72 apartment units. The time -frame for construction of the 2 phases in not determined, since development of the second phase will depend on the market and financial conditions which develop. No access is proposed to be taken to the west, to Patrick Country Rd., and a deferral of the required street improvements for Patrick Country Rd. is requested. The required right-of-way for this road, however, is proposed to be dedicated. A wavier of the requirement to construct the bridge which spans the creek which crosses Patrick Country Rd. is requested. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-T A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission of the site plan for the Saddle Creek Apartment complex is requested. (Note: Since the proposal involves approval of a preliminary plat as a separate issue, and since the requested variance and wavier are being considered as a part of the preliminary plat item, there is no need to address these variance and waiver issues as a separate issue in this request. There is, however, a need to make the approval of the site plan conditioned on the approval by the Board of Directors of the variance and waiver.) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The topography is rolling, dropping generally to the south from an elevation along the north property line of approximately 270-300 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to 265-270 feet MSL along the southern boundary of the lot. There is a creek lying along the south boundary of the proposed lot. The existing zoning of the majority of the site is MF -18, although there is a 20 foot wide strip of R-2 land lying along the north boundary of the lot. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) the minimum drainage requirements (pursuant to Section 31 of the Code) are not met by the site layout as presented; 2) one-half street improvements will be required for Patrick Country Rd., and this street must be developed to the standards of a collector street of a 36 foot wide street with a sidewalk, and the full width of the bridge spanning the creek which crosses Patrick country Rd. must be built; 3) the Base Flood elevation at this site is approximately 264 NGVD, and the floodplain encroaches on this property (Note: Contact Public Works, ADPC&E, AND USACE-LRD prior to beginning any site work.); 4) both vertical and horizontal roadway alignment for Chenonceau Blvd. must be verified to assure adequate sight distance; and, 5). street plan, stormwater detention, and boundary survey information will be required. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required in order to serve this property. On-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater comments that a capacity analysis will be required. Capacity contribution fees, Hinson Reimbursement 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-285-T Fees, The Ranch Reimbursement Fees, and Chenal North Slope Reimbursement Fees will be assessed. Arkansas Power and Light Co. comments that 15 foot easements will be required along all four boundaries of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department will require additional fire hydrants for this complex. Landscape review comments that the proposed buffer width along Chenonceau Blvd. drops below the 30 foot width required. The minimum requirement is 20 feet. A portion of the proposed buffer drops to a width of 5 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the northern site perimeter. This screen may either be a "good neighbor" wood fence, or be dense evergreen plantings. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant proposes 2 phases for the development. The second phase is the portion of the development which lies along the west boundary of the site. The required improvements for Patrick Country Rd. would not be required until the Phase 2 development begins. However, the applicant may construct the entire project at one time, and is seeking, as part of the preliminary plat approval, a deferral of the Patrick Country Rd. improvement requirements and a wavier of the requirement to construct the bridge over the creek in Patrick Country Rd. There are issues regarding buffer widths and screening which remain to be resolved. E. ANALYSIS:. The site plan which has been submitted meets the technical requirements of the ordinance; however, there are the issues of buffer width along the Chenonceau Blvd. frontage and of the street and bridge improvement requirements to be resolved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant meeting the requirements for landscape and land use buffering, and subject to the Board of Directors 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-T approving the requested deferral and waiver, or the applicant complying with the Master Street Plan requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Mr. White reviewed the comments continued in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff person outlined the Public Works concerns, and Mr. White, the Public Works staff person, and the Committee members discussed the concerns. Mr. White indicated that it was the developers understanding that the bridge construction would be the City's responsibility, and that the developer was proposing to defer constructing one-half collector street improvements until the City built the bridge. Mr. White indicated that he would need to discuss this issue with the applicant in more detail. The Committee forwarded the proposed plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that there are no outstanding technical issues to resolve. The applicant, staff reported, has requested a 5 foot height variance for the buildings, so that the apartment buildings may be three-story buildings, and explained that the variance is minimal. Staff recommended approval of the variance. The item, approval of the site plan and a recommendation of approval of the height variance, was included on the consent agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. M November 29, 1994 ITEM NO • 17 FILE NO.: Z -3987-A NAME• LOCATION• Otter Creek Assembly of God - Amended Conditional Use Permit 9415 Stagecoach Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Otter Creek Assembly of God by Rev. John Tracy PROPOSAL: The applicant desires to amend a previously approved conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 30 foot by 30 foot storage building on this existing, R-2 zoned, 5 acre church site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The church is located on the west side of Stagecoach Road (Highway 5), approximately 1/2 mile south of Baseline Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The church is located in a rural part of the city comprised primarily of single family homes on oversized lots and large areas of vacant land. The church was in existence at the time of annexation. In 1983, a conditional use permit was approved allowing for an expansion which included a new sanctuary. The proposed storage building is located behind the church building and should not affect the church's continued compatibility with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The church sanctuary has a seating capacity of 287 persons, requiring 71 on-site parking spaces. There are currently 64 spaces on-site, as was approved by the Planning Commission in 1983. The proposed storage building does not generate the requirement of any additional parking. 4. Screening and Buffers The 13 percent expansion in building area requires a 13 percent upgrade in landscaping toward compliance with the Landscaping Ordinance. Much of the site is heavily wooded, including the north, south and east perimeters. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3987-A 5. City Engineer Comments Right-of-way was dedicated to 50 feet from the centerline of Stagecoach Road through the plat associated with the 1983 conditional use permit. Street improvements are required to Stagecoach Road; one-half of a 60 foot street, with sidewalk. A development permit is required per Section 8- 283. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance is required. Through the previous Planning Commission action, the required street improvements were deferred until the next building permit is requested. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant desires to amend a previously approved conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 900 square foot storage building on this R-2 zoned church site. Previous Planning Commission action in 1983 approved an expansion which included a new sanctuary. The proposed storage building will sit behind the church building and will not be visible from the road. The perimeters of the site are heavily wooded which will screen the building from any adjacent properties. The addition of this storage building, which is to be used for the storage of a lawn tractor, gardening equipment and church materials, should have no impact on the adjacent properties. Staff is supportive of the request. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the item subject to compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance and the City Engineer Comments. 0 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3987-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and outlined the Landscaping and City Engineer Comments noted above. The primary focus of the discussion was on the requirement to construct Master Street Plan improvements on Stagecoach Road. Reflecting on the previous Planning Commission action whereby the street improvements were deferred to the "next building permit", the Committee questioned whether this storage building in fact generated the need to construct those street improvements. it was determined that the applicant should provide a written statement clarifying that the street improvements will be tied to a specific building expansion and asking that they not be required as a result of the construction of this storage building. The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, John Tracy, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. Staff recommended that the required street improvements to Stagecoach Road be deferred to the next building phase. The City Engineer's Office agreed with this recommendation. As part of the consent Agenda, this item was approved subject to compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance and the City Engineer's Comments. The required street improvements were deferred to the next building phase. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z -4423-B NAME: Chenal Car Wash - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 620 South Bowman Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Gray Rock Real Estate Holdings, Inc. by Terry Burruss PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a facility containing a complete car wash and detail service along with gas pumps and a Quick Lube (oil changing) service on this C-3 zoned, .99 acre site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the west side of S. Bowman Road, one lot south of its intersection with Chenal Parkway. The property is one of the outparcels associated with the Wal-Mart development. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The property is located within the large commercial node at the intersection of Chenal Parkway and Bowman Road. Adjacent properties are zoned commercial and occupied by uses ranging from restaurants to large discount stores and home centers. Although the proposed use of this property as a car wash may be compatible with other commercial uses in the area, staff is uncomfortable with the level of activity proposed through this particular development. The applicant proposes an intense use of a small parcel of property. Circulation and vehicle stacking problems could negatively impact the adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This 11,336 square foot automotive service facility requires 50 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a plan where 41 spaces can be provided, counting each work bay and stacking space. Staff does not feel that the circulation stacking pattern is workable and doubts whether adequate vehicle space is available on this lot. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4423-B 4. Screening and Buffers A total of 60 of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped; the proposed site plan is deficient. To comply with Ordinance No. 16,235, all landscaped areas must be irrigated and the landscape strip along the Bowman Road frontage is to be bermed. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. 5. City Engineer Comments Contour information, sketch grading and drainage plans must be submitted. Eliminate the driveway off of the north access drive and rework the circulation pattern on this site. There is insufficient room for staging of vehicles and providing access to lube and car wash facilities. The site should be redesigned for circular flow patterns rather than cross patterns. 6. Utility Company and Fire Department Comments Ap&L requires a 10 foot easement along the west perimeter. Provide on-site fire protection. The hydrant on Bowman Road is situated in such a manner that it cannot adequately serve this proposed development. 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to construct an 11,336 square foot automotive service facility on this C-3 zoned, .99 acre site. The facility will contain lube services, detail shops, gas pumps and a full service car wash. Staff feels that the applicant has proposed too intense a development for this small site resulting in insufficient landscaping area, deficient on-site parking and a congested and confusing traffic circulation pattern. If a car wash facility is to be considered for this site, it must be on a much smaller scale and consideration should be given to eliminating the other proposed services. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being too intense of a development and overbuilding of a small, .99 acre tract. The site is not able to accommodate the required parking and there is insufficient area for interior landscaping. The proposed internal circulation is congested and confusing which could interfere with traffic on the adjacent commercial developments. iq November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4423-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE_ COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant, Terry Burruss, was present. Staff presented the item and noted the landscaping, City Engineer, Utility and Fire Department Comments outlined above. Staff noted its concern that the proposed development was overbuilding the site, resulting in circulation problems and deficiencies in parking and landscaping. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the intensity of the proposed development and traffic flow on and around the site. Mr. Burruss stated that the project could perhaps be downsized. He also stated that traffic flow could be arranged so that traffic enters the site from one driveway and the other two driveways could be exit only. Mr. Burruss was made aware of the landscaping and signage provisions within Ordinance No. 16,235, which rezoned this property to C-3. The ground -mounted sign is to be limited to 10 feet in height and 90 square feet in area. Staff recommended that the wall of the car wash facility facing Bowman Road be solid, with no windows which allow viewing of the car wash mechanism. Mr. Burruss responded that he would like to have areas of windows in this wall but not make the whole wall glass. After a brief discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Pete Hornibrook was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been submitted which addressed all staff concerns. In response to those staff concerns and discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the applicant submitted a revised site plan which reduced the building area from 11,336 square feet to 9,712 square feet and which lessened the intensity of activity on the site. The design had been reworked to provide for proper internal circulation and vehicle stacking space. The revised plan also complied with the City's Landscape Ordinance. In light of this revision, staff recommended approval of the item, subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 3 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4423-B 2. Compliance with the provisions established in Ordinance No. 16,235 which rezoned this property to C-3 3. The ground -mounted sign being a maximum of 90 square feet in area and not exceeding 10 feet in height. 4. on-site fire protection being provided. 5. The wall of the facility facing Bowman Road incorporating small areas of windows, rather than having a large wall of glass which allows viewing of the car wash mechanism. 6. Compliance with the utility company and City Engineer Comments. In response to a question from Commissioner Willis, Mr. Hornibrook presented the revised plan and outlined those items which were changed from the original plan. Mr. Hornibrook stated that the areas of windows facing Bowman Road would incorporate "frosty type block squares.Ae After a brief discussion, the item was placed on the consent agenda for approval as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Ball). 4 } November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z -5524-C NAME: Premium Pet Products - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 401 South Bowman Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Michael Tierney and Ray Bell by Mark Buerkle PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow a 4,000 square foot retail pet products store as part of a 7,480 square foot retail commercial building to be constructed on this C-1 zoned, .76 acre site. The pet products store is requested as a "retail use not listed (enclosed)." The remaining 3,480 square feet will be utilized by an as yet undetermined C-1 use. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of South Bowman Road, one block north of its intersection with Chenal Parkway. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located within the large commercial node extending from West Markham and Bowman to Chenal Parkway and Bowman. Properties north, south and west of this site are zoned commercial and contain uses ranging from a bank, tire shop, restaurants and convenience stores to large discount retail stores. The property adjacent to the east of this site is zoned residential. This property is zoned C-1 which allows a variety of commercial uses. With attention given to screening the adjacent residential property, the proposed use of this site for a retail pet supply store should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The 7,480 square foot retail building requires 24 on-site parking spaces. The site plan proposes 32 spaces, one of which is designated as handicapped accessible. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5524-C 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances is required. 6% of the interior of the vehicular use area must be landscaped; the site plan is deficient by approximately 322 square feet. A 3 foot building landscape strip is required. The dumpster must be enclosed by an 8 foot opaque screen. All lighting is to be low-level and directional, aimed away from adjacent residential property. 5. City Engineer Comments Contour information, sketch grading and drainage plans must be submitted to the City Engineer's Office. Drainage easements, stormwater detention and sidewalks are required. The Board of Directors approved a right-of-way of 40 feet from the centerline of Bowman Road in 1992; Ordinance No. 16,149. 6. Utility Comments Wastewater utility reports the sewer main extension is currently under construction. The project has not been accepted by the utility at this time. Locate the nearest fire hydrant and show its relationship to this site. 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to construct a 7,480 square foot retail commercial building on this C-1 zoned, .76 acre site. 4,000 square feet of the building is proposed to be occupied by Premium Pet Products, a retail pet supply store. The application filed is for a "retail use not listed (enclosed)." The remaining 3,480 square feet of the building will be occupied by allowable C-1 uses. Of primary concern when looking at this site is its relationship to the adjacent residential property. The applicant has proposed a 25 foot landscaped setback at the rear of the property. No portion of the building, driveway or parking lot will intrude into this 25 foot landscaped area. This exceeds the buffer requirement which is 9.3 feet. The back of the proposed building will have no doors or windows other than the minimum which may be required as a fire escape. In addition to the 25 foot landscaped buffer, a 6 foot tall, opaque fence will be installed on the property line where adjacent to the residential property. Staff feels that the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and the applicant has made a good effort to 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5524-C protect the adjacent residential properties. with some minor changes in the site plan to accommodate additional interior and building landscaping, staff supports the application. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances and compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) Mark Buerkle was present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted the Landscaping, City Engineer and Utility Comments outlined above. It was noted that the site plan provides for landscaping and buffers in excess of the Ordinance requirements on the perimeters but that the interior and building landscaping were deficient. Mr. Buerkle was advised to revise the site plan to show the required interior and building landscaping. The proximity of the dumpster to the residential property was noted and Mr. Buerkle was advised to increase the height of the dumpster screen to 8 feet and to limit the hours of dumpster pickup to avoid undue noise intrusion into the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Buerkle stated that the back wall of the building will have no openings other than a fire door, if required. He also stated that he was working with the neighbors to determine if the 6 foot opaque fence should be put at the east property line or at the same setback as the building and parking lot. The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution, PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Mark Buerkle, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been submitted which addressed staff concerns. The required landscaping had been provided and the dumpster is to be enclosed with a masonry wall. Pick-up of the dumpster is to be limited to daylight hours. As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-5900 NAME• LOCATION: Mainard Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 12517 Alexander Road OWNER/APPLICANT: John and Shirley Mainard PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a single -wide, manufactured home on this R-2 zoned, 7.5+ acre site as an accessory dwelling. The proposed home is to replace a double -wide mobile home which was destroyed by fire on October 8, 1994. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the survey requirement, filing fee and the abstract company/certified mail notice requirement. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the south side of Alexander Road, approximately 500 feet west of Vimy Ridge Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The property is located in a rural area of the city comprised primarily of single-family homes on large lots and large vacant tracts. There are several other single -wide and multisectional manufactured homes in the vicinity. This proposed home is to replace an older, double -wide mobile home which was on the property at the time of annexation. The proposed home sits approximately 200 feet from any property line and should have no impact on adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The site contains a gravel driveway and two parking pads serving the principal dwelling and the site formerly occupied by the double -wide mobile home. There is adequate parking to serve both residences. 4. Screening and Buffers None required for this application. `) 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5900 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant desires to place a 16 foot by 65 foot, 1986 or newer model, single -wide manufactured home on this 7.5+ acre, R-2 zoned site as an accessory dwelling. The proposed single -wide is to replace an older, double -wide mobile home which was destroyed by fire on October 8, 1994. The property is owned by and occupied by the applicant's mother. The applicant desires to maintain a residence on the property to be near her mother who is elderly and lives alone. The double -wide was not insured and its loss has placed a hardship on the applicant. Due to financial difficulties, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to submit a survey and filing fee. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement to do the notice of public hearing based on an abstract company's certified list of property owners. In light of the mitigating circumstances associated with this issue, staff supports the requested waivers. The required sign has been placed on the property and the applicant hand carried the notice to adjacent property owners. Based on information provided by the applicant's real estate tax statement, staff visited the site and drew the site plan. Staff feels that the proposed single -wide will have no impact on adjacent properties and in fact may be an improvement over the nonconforming double -wide which it is proposed to replace. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application and of the requested waivers subject to the single -wide manufactured home being placed in compliance with the Ordinance established minimum siting standards as follow: 1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5900 2. Removal of all transport features. 3. Permanent foundation. 4. Exterior wall finished in a manner compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Underpinning with permanent materials. 6. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. 7. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant, Shirley Mainard, was present. Staff presented the item and noted the requested waivers. The ordinance siting standards were also pointed out. 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: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Shirley Mainard, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting a waiver of the filing fee, survey requirement and the abstract company/certified mail notice requirement. The applicant had hand -carried a notice to adjacent property owners and staff had prepared the site plan. It was noted that the item had been advertised in the newspaper and the required sign had been placed on the property. After a brief discussion and comments from Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, a motion was made to waive the bylaws as requested. The motion was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for approval, subject to compliance with the Ordinance Established Minimum Siting Standards outlined in the Staff Recommendation. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO.: Z-5901 NAME: Victory Fellowship Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 5705 West 65th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: AT&T by Victory Fellowship Church; Paul Doherty, Pastor PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the use of this existing R-2 and I-2 zoned building and property as a church, day care center and private school. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the south side of 65th Street, approximately 800 feet east of Geyer Springs Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood Zoning and uses in the immediate vicinity are extremely mixed ranging from single family homes to wholesale/warehouse operations. This building was built by the phone company and is currently used as offices for AT&T. Allowing the conversion of the building to a church, day care center and private school should not affect its compatibility with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposed church's attendance is approximately 300 persons. Enrollment in the day care/private school is approximately 200 persons. The site currently has a 169± space parking lot with a drop-off/pickup area at the front. The parking is sufficient for the proposed use. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. Buffers are required where this site abuts residentially zoned property. A 6 foot opaque screen is required along all perimeters where adjacent to residentially zoned property. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5901 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building for a church, day care center and private school. The building is currently owned by AT&T and is being used as offices. The property is zoned R-2 and I-2. The church has a membership of approximately 300 persons and the day care/private school has an enrollment of approximately 200. The proposed uses are compatible with other uses in the neighborhood and should not have a negative impact on any adjacent properties. The applicant should bring the property into compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant, Paul Doherty, was present. Staff presented the item and noted the landscaping comments outlined above. It was revealed during the meeting that the applicant did not own all of Lot 2R. It appears that at the time of the phone company breakup, several years ago, the South 182.9 feet of Lot 2R was transferred to Southwestern Bell Telephone, who occupies Lot 1R. The part of Lot 2R retained by AT&T is the North 309.17 feet. The applicant was advised to prepare a replat of these two lots showing the new lot arrangement with the South 182.9 feet of Lot 2R being combined with Lot 1R to the east. The new lot line dividing what is now Lot 2R will run east and west along the edge of the pavement of the parking lot. The result of this new lot line is that it eliminates any unpaved area which might be used for landscaping. The applicant was advised to meet with the Plans Review Specialist to determine what remedy is available. Due to limitations placed on the site by the existing asphalt parking lot, it may be necessary to go to the City Beautiful Commission. It was felt that any approval by the Planning Commission of this site plan could be granted subject to compliance with the Landscape Ordinance or a variance being granted by the City Beautiful Commission. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5901 The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Paul Doherty, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The required replat had been submitted to staff. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting a one year deferral of the requirement to place a screen along the south property line, separating the church lot from the adjacent Southwestern Bell Telephone lot. The church is negotiating with Southwestern Bell Telephone to acquire this adjacent property. Staff recommended approval of the one year deferral. As part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff, including the one year deferral on the screen along the south property line. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Wyrick). 3 } November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: Z-5902 NAME: Cellular One Tower - Adams Field Site - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Part of Lot 7, Cherry Acres Addition OWNER/APPLICANT: Cellular One by John Flake PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall, monopole cellular tower on this R-2 zoned site. Associated with the tower is a 12 foot by 18 foot, unmanned equipment shelter. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The tower site is a 50 foot by 50 foot leased area located within Lot 7, Cherry Acres Addition. The property is located north of Fourche Dam Pike, east of Deuerling Road and west of the Fourche Creek Levee. 20 Compatibility with Neighborhood The tower site is located in an open field east of the Cherry Acres Subdivision. This small residential subdivision is situated between the expanding Little Rock Airport and Fourche Creek where it enters the Arkansas River. The tower site is approximately 200 feet from the nearest residence and sits near the Fourche Creek Levee. The proposed monopole tower should have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Access to the site is gained by a 20 foot access easement off of Deuerling Road. Parking is provided at the tower site for the service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902 4. Screening and Buffers A 6 foot opaque screen should be installed along the western perimeter of the tower site to shield the tower base and equipment shelter from the residential properties to the west. The strands of barb wire on top of the chain link fence must not extend outward, beyond the vertical plane of the fence. 5. City Engineer Comments Driveway design must conform to Section 31-210 at the point the access easement intersects Deuerling Road. 6. Utility Comments Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports there is a 12 inch force main in the immediate vicinity. They are unable to determine the exact location of the proposed tower site in relation to this 12 inch main. Contact Wastewater Utility for details. 7� Analysis The applicant proposes to construct a 150 foot tall, monopole cellular tower on this R-2 zoned property. The proposed tower site is a 50 foot by 50 foot leased area within Lot 7, Cherry Acre Addition. The property is currently vacant, being used as farm land. The tower site is approximately 200 feet from the nearest residence and should have a minimal impact on the adjacent neighborhood. Two issues have surfaced during the review of this application which need addressed. The first issue concerns the proposed tower's relationship to the Little Rock Municipal Airport property. FAA approval must be received prior to the building permit being issued for the tower. The second issue concerns Deuerling Road. Several residents on the west side of Deuerling Road contend that the property on the east side of the street does not have access to Deuerling Road. They contend that Deuerling Road was dedicated by the residents on the west side of the street and it is, in effect, a private road. The City Engineer's Office has confirmed that Deuerling Road is in fact a dedicated public right-of-way and any abutting property owner has a right to access his property from it, including property owners on the east side of the street. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower is a reasonable use for this property and supports the application. Fa November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the City Engineer, Utility and Landscape Comments. Staff also recommends that approval be granted subject to FAA approval being given prior to a building permit being issued. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant, John Flake, was present but left prior to the discussion of this item. He did receive a copy of the Subdivision Committee discussion list. Staff presented the item and noted the Landscaping, City Engineer and Utility Comments outlined above. Staff noted that FAA approval was required for this tower site. It was determined that any Planning Commission approval would be subject to FAA approval being granted prior to a building permit being obtained. A brief discussion then followed concerning access to the site over Deuerling Road. The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) John Flake was present representing the applicant. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff read a letter from David Hathcock® City of Little Rock 911 Address Coordinator. In Mr. Hathcock°s letter, he stated, "Deuerling Road is a dedicated city street as of the signing of the Mackey court order signed on June 17, 1970. This street may be used by any citizen at any time for access and egress from any property." Mr. Flake then presented a copy of the letter to the Commission. He offered no further comments at this time. Carl Sparks, of 1720 Deuerling Road, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed tower. Mr. Sparks stated that he was concerned about increased traffic on Deuerling Road and again questioned whether Deuerling Road was a public street. Leo Deuerling, of 1800 Deuerling Road, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed tower. He stated Deuerling Road is j l November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5902 too narrow for truck traffic. Mr. Deuerling also stated that he felt access to the tower site should not be taken off of Deuerling Road. Mr. Flake responded that Deuerling Road is, in fact, a public street. He stated that the site will be unmanned and will generate very little traffic once the tower is constructed. Chairman Chachere stated that she understood the neighbor's concerns about construction vehicles damaging the road. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Flake if Cellular One had any problem agreeing to leave the road in the same condition it was found in prior to its use by construction traffic going to the tower site. Mr. Flake responded that Cellular One would repair any damage done to the road by construction traffic going to the tower site. A motion was then made to approve the application as recommended by staff. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Chachere). 4 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 23 FILE NO.: Z-5903 NAME: LOCATION: Dunn Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 7312 Missouri Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Valerie Dunn PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the conversion of an existing 440 square foot pool house into an accessory dwelling. The property is zoned R-2. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the north side of Missouri Avenue, 1 1/2 blocks east of Mississippi Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located on the northern edge of a large, single-family residential neighborhood. Bordering the neighborhood, on the north, is an area of multifamily development including duplexes, condominiums and apartments. The proposed 440 square foot accessory dwelling is located at the rear of this lot and is well separated from the nearest single-family dwelling. The accessory dwelling should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The principal dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling require one on-site parking space each. The site contains a driveway which allows for the stacking of two vehicles, one behind the other. The applicant proposes to use this relationship rather than add paving to the site by widening the driveway. 4. Screening and Buffers No additional screening or buffering is required for this single-family zoned property. 5. City Encrineer Comments No comments November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5903 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to convert an existing 440 square foot study/poolhouse into an accessory dwelling. The applicant's stated intent is to allow her daughter to use the dwelling for the present time and in the event it is necessary, make it available to her mother-in-law. In the R-2 district, it is required that the landowner occupy one of the dwellings. No limitation is placed on the occupancy of the second unit. The proposed accessory dwelling meets all ordinance standards for area and setbacks. It should not have a negative impact on any adjacent properties and staff is supportive of the request. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant, Valerie Dunn, was present. Staff presented the item. A brief discussion then followed concerning the proposed parking arrangement. It was determined that the proposed stacking arrangement was suitable rather than adding additional paving to the site to widen the driveway. The Committee determined there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Valerie Dunn, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. K 1 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 24 FILE NO.: Z-5904 NAME: LOCATION• Kilpatrick Manufactured home - Conditional Use Permit 2618 Sherman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Fannie Kilpatrick PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the placement of a 24 foot by 40 foot multisectional, manufactured home on this R-3 zoned lot. A variance is requested to allow a reduced front yard setback of 20 feet. Mrs. Kilpatrick is also requesting a waiver of the abstract company/certified mail notice requirement. She has hand carried the notice of public hearing to her neighbors. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the west side of Sherman Street, one block south of Roosevelt Road. The I-30 right-of-way is directly adjacent, to the east of this site. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The property is one of only four residential properties in this block of Sherman Street fronting on to I-30. Other uses in the area range from a tavern to service stations and a church. A condemned single-family dwelling is located directly behind this property. The proposed manufactured home will maintain the residential use of this property and should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The proposed use requires one on-site parking space, as per single-family dwelling standard. There is currently no on- site parking but space is available, taking access off of the alley. 4. Screening and Buffers None, required for this single-family application. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5904 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure from this property and replace it with a 40 foot by 24 foot, multisectional manufactured home. The existing home is in disrepair and is at the point that the cost of repair is not justifiable. The applicant desires to stay on the property and feels that the proposed manufactured home offers the most cost efficient alternative. The proposed manufactured home will have a front yard setback of 20 feet which is one foot greater than the existing structure has. 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 Ordinance established minimum siting standards as follows 1. A pitched roof of three (3) in twelve (12) or fourteen (14) degrees or greater. 2. Removal of all transport elements. 3a Permanent foundation. 4. Exterior wall finished so as to be compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Orientation compatible with placement of adjacent structures. 6. Underpinning with permanent materials. 7. All homes shall be multisectional. 8. Off-street parking per single-family dwelling standard, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee of the applicant's desire to do a "walk around" notice rather than the certified mail notice based on a list obtained from an abstract company. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5904 After a brief discussion, the Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Fannie Kilpatrick, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting a waiver of the abstract company/certified mail notice requirement. The applicant had hand -carried a notice to adjacent property owners. It was noted that the item had been advertised in the newspaper and the required sign had been placed on the property. After a brief discussion and comments from Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters, a motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the notice as done by Ms. Kilpatrick. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to compliance with the Ordinance Established Minimum Siting Standards as outlined in the Staff Recommendation. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: Z-5905 y�►ijui" LOCATION: Holy Souls Day Care Center - Conditional Use Permit 824 North Harrison OWNER/APPLICANT: Our Lady of the Holy Souls Catholic Church; Fr. David LeSieur, Pastor PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the conversion of this existing, R-3 zoned residential structure into a day care center with an enrollment of 60 children. A variance is requested to allow an addition with a reduced rear yard setback of 8 feet. The ordinance requires a 25 foot rear yard setback. A variance is also requested to allow the proposed addition to have a reduced side yard setback. A proposed landing and stairs will extend to within a few inches of the south side yard. A waiver of the on-site parking requirement is also requested. The applicant proposes to utilize other church parking lots in the vicinity of this site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 10 Site Location The property is located at the southwest corner of "H°° Street and North Harrison Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed day care center is located within a predominately single-family residential neighborhood, at the western fringe of the Hillcrest neighborhood. Within approximately three blocks of this site are several institutional uses including an elementary school, Forest November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5905 Heights Jr. High, the Francis Allen School, Holy Souls Church and school and the Mount St. Mary's campus. Staff feels that further institutional infringement into this area will harm the integrity and livability of the residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking This day care center will have an enrollment of 60 children and will have 10 employees; requiring 16 on-site parking, loading/ unloading spaces. The applicant proposes to construct a drop-off drive which will accommodate four vehicles. The remaining parking requirement is proposed to be met by utilizing other church parking lots in the immediate vicinity. 4. Screening and Buffers The proposed playground must be screened to protect the adjacent residential property. 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline on "H" Street and construct one-half of collector standard street improvements. Dedicate right-of-way to 25 feet from centerline on Harrison Street and construct one-half of residential standard street improvements. Traffic Engineering recommends denial. The proposed drop-off area has insufficient sight distance for access. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of an existing, single-family residential structure into a day care center with an enrollment of 60 children with 10 employees. Variances are requested to allow an addition with reduced rear and side yard setbacks. A waiver of the on-site parking requirement is requested. Staff is opposed to the proposed day care center and bases its opposition on several factors. This single-family residential neighborhood has already been impacted by several non-residential, institutional uses. The Holy Souls Catholic Church and school currently occupies K November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5905 three full City blocks located northeast of "H" Street and Harrison Street. The Francis Allen School for Exceptional Children occupies property at "H" Street and Tyler Street with a parking lot located at "G" Street and Tyler Street. An elementary school occupies one city block at "F" Street and Harrison Street. The large Forest Heights Jr. High School campus is located at "H" Street and Filmore Street. Finally, the Mount St. Mary's campus is located at "H" Street and Kavanaugh Blvd. Staff feels that further institutional intrusion into this area will harm the integrity and livability of the residential neighborhood. This portion of "H" Street is hilly and particularly dangerous. This property is located at the crest of a hill which offers very limited visibility of eastbound traffic on "H" Street. Staff feels that the proposed drop-off could create situations where traffic is stacked into "H" Street at a point where eastbound traffic crests a hill, creating a potentially congested and dangerous situation. In order to accommodate the proposed enrollment of 60 children, the applicant proposes to add a 1960 square foot addition to the existing 1,400 square foot structure. The proposed addition will have reduced rear and side yard setbacks and the existing home already has a reduced front yard setback. There is no room on the site for parking, resulting in the applicant requesting a total waiver of the on-site parking requirement. Persons entering the day care center will have to park on other church owned parking lots and walk across "H" Street to the site. Staff feels that the proposed development is an overbuilding of the lot. S. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being incompatible with the neighborhood, an intense overbuilding of the site and unable to meet ordinance standards for setbacks and parking requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted the Landscaping and City Engineer Comments outlined above. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the lack of parking and the proposed drop-off area. The applicant was advised to rework the site plan to provide for a better drop-off arrangement. 3 j November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5905 The Committee then briefly discussed the setbacks of the proposed building. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Fr. David LeSieur, was present. There were several objectors present. Letters in opposition to the proposed day-care center had been presented to the Planning Commission prior to the beginning of the meeting. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been submitted which increased the size of the proposed addition to 2,040 square feet. The drop-off area had also been redesigned. Mr. Carney explained that the Planning staff still felt that the proposed use was too intense for the site and that the use was inappropriate for this neighborhood. Greg Peckham addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He pointed out the revised drop-off design and stated that it was done at the City Traffic Engineer's suggestion. Mr. Carney responded that the revised drop-off plan was suggested by the traffic engineer as being better than the initial plan but that it still did not address the concern of stacking traffic onto "H" Street. Mr. Peckham then gave a brief history on the reason the day-care center was being relocated. He stated that the existing day-care building on the St. John's campus was going to be remodeled for another use and that the Bishop had directed the day-care center to vacate. Mr. Peckham stated that the traffic going to and from the proposed day-care center would not negatively impact traffic on "H" Street, even when combined with the traffic from the other uses in the area. He stated that the proposed drop-off design provided a sight distance of 250 feet which is adequate for safety. Mr. Peckham continued by stating that adequate parking is available across "H" Street on the Holy Souls campus. Mr. Peckham acknowledged that the addition would result in overbuilding of the site but stated that the addition would be architecturally designed to blend with the neighborhood. Mr. Peckham concluded by stating that the day-care center was a "ministry" of the church and not a commercial use. He stated that the day-care center would have to close if the conditional use permit was denied. Bruce Eddy, a parent of a child at the day-care center, addressed the Commission. He stated that closing the day-care center would have a negative impact on the children. He then introduced his 4 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5905 daughter to the Commission and continued at some length extolling the values of the Holy Souls day-care center. Commissioner Willis stated that he had concerns about traffic and the overbuilding of the site. David Scherer, of the Public Works Department, addressed the Commission. He stated that Public Works was opposed to the issue due to a lack of an adequate and safe drop-off area. He stated that Holy Souls was trying to do "too much on a small site." Paige Markman, another parent, addressed the Commission in favor of the proposed day-care center. Paul Crawford, Chairman of the Hillcrest Resident's Association Zoning Committee, addressed the Commission in opposition to the day-care center. He spoke of the increased traffic and of the impact of other institutional uses in the neighborhood. Andre Guerrero, of 5218 "G" Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed day-care center. He stated that the proposed day-care center would negatively impact the adjacent resident's quality of life. Mr. Guerrero stated that he understood the Bishop was forcing the day-care to move and questioned why it was not relocated elsewhere on the St. John's or Mount St. Mary's campuses. Craig Chotard, of 5219 "G" Street, spoke in opposition to the day-care center. He stated that he did not want to see this "commercial intrusion" into the neighborhood. He stated that the proposed day-care center would only compound a traffic problem which is already bad. Dr. Kristy McLendon, of 5207 "G" Street, spoke in opposition to the day-care center. She stated that the neighborhood could not support the additional traffic which the use would generate. Mr. and Mrs. T. J. Raney, of 804 N. Harrison, both spoke in opposition to the day-care center. Ginger Martin, of 822 N. Clarkson, stated that she too opposed the day-care center. Dr. John Graves, of 5218 "G" Street, spoke in opposition to the day-care center. He stated that a day-care center of this magnitude was a commercial operation and would degrade the residential neighborhood's environment. He also stated that the Bishop could change his mind and allow the day-care center to build on the St. John's campus. 5 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.; Z-5905 Theresa Kelone, of 814 N. Harrison St., spoke at length in opposition to the day-care center. She read from a letter which had been submitted to the Commission earlier. M. J. Connaughton, of 5222 "F" Street, spoke in opposition to the day-care center. He stated that traffic in the area was already congested. Jay Saniti, a parent of a child in the day-care center, spoke in favor of the proposed day-care center. In response to a question from Commissioner Willis, David Scherer of the Public Works Department, discussed the proposed improvements to "H" Street and its intersection with Van Buren/Kavanaugh Blvd. Mr. Scherer stated that the proposed improvements would turn "H" Street, east of Clarkson, into a one- way street and would limit access to the intersection at Van Buren to a right turn only. Commissioner McCarthy asked how the day-care center planned to handle traffic in and out of the center. Ms. Markham stated that several parents had agreed to work with the day-care center to direct traffic and bring children to and from the building and the parent's cars. Commissioner McCarthy then asked if there was land available on the St. John's campus for the day-care center. Mr. Peckham stated that the Bishop had said no land was available. He stated that this effort was a "last gasp" to save the day-care center. Commissioner Walker asked what the timetable was for the day-care center to vacate the building on the St. John's campus. The response was December 31, 1994. Commissioner Walker stated that he did not see traffic as a problem but that he was concerned about overbuilding of the site and the proposed use. He stated that he was sensitive to the feelings of the neighboring property owners. The question was then called and a vote was taken on the issue. The vote was 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent. The item was denied. N I November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: Z-5906 NAME: LOCATION• Alltel Cellular Tower - Southedge Drive Site Conditional Use Permit 1100 Southedge Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Alltel Mobile Communications of Arkansas by Tracy Gill PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole cellular tower on this MF -24 zoned property. Associated with the tower is an unmanned 28 foot by 17 foot equipment shelter. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the north side of Southedge Drive, one block north of Rodney Parham Road and directly west of the Spring Meadows Apartment Complex. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed tower site is in an area of mixed zoning and uses located along the north side of Rodney Parham Road. The properties fronting onto Rodney Parham are primarily zoned C-3 and contain a variety of commercial uses. Behind these, and separating them from the single-family residential neighborhood to the north, is an area of multifamily zoning containing several apartment complexes. The proposed tower site is shielded from the residential neighborhood to the north by an apartment complex. The Treasure Hill neighborhood, to the south, is separated from the tower site by the commercial development on Rodney Parham. The proposed 100 foot tower should not have a negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The site will be reached by a 15 foot access easement off of Southedge Drive. Parking is provided at the tower site for the service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No other on-site parking is required. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5906 4. Screening and Buffers The base of the tower site will be enclosed by an 8 foot tall, wood privacy fence. Where adjacent to the apartment complex, the tower site and parking space will be further screened by planting 5 foot tall, evergreen shrubs. 5. City Engineer Comments Access to the site must be taken through Lot 10, which is occupied by the apartment complex. No new driveway will be allowed onto Southedge Drive at this point. 6. Utility Comments Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a sewer main extension with easements will be required if sewer service is necessary. The Fire Department requires the driveway to be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The site only has a 15 foot access easement to Southedge Drive. 7. Analysis The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 100 foot tall, monopole tower on this MF -24 zoned site. The proposed tower site is shielded somewhat from the nearest single-family neighborhoods by a two-story apartment complex and by commercial development along Rodney Parham Road. Staff feels that the proposed 100 foot tower is a reasonable use for this site and is supportive of the request, however one important issue must be resolved prior to the Planning Commission acting on this matter. During the initial review of this application, it became apparent that the small piece of property on which the tower lease area is located was illegally subdivided from the larger property on which the apartment complex is located. This was later confirmed by the applicant. In light of this development, appropriate to defer action on subdivision issue is resolved. 8. Staff Recommendation staff feels that it would be the proposed tower until the Staff recommends deferral of this item until the property is properly subdivided. Fa November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5906 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that the applicant had requested a deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting. A subdivision application will be filed for that same meeting. The Committee determined there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting in order to address the subdivision issue. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 3 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: Z-5909 NAME• LOCATION• Sears Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 1219 N. Tyler Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Jerry Sears PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the conversion of the upstairs of an existing, two-story accessory structure into an accessory dwelling. The property is zoned R-2. A variance is requested to allow an accessory dwelling greater than 700 square feet in area. The existing structure has 780± square feet on each floor. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The property is located on the east side of North Tyler Street, one block south of its intersection with "L" Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The subject property is located in a predominately single- family residential neighborhood. The site contains a single-family dwelling and a large, two- story accessory building. The lower level of the accessory building contains a two -car garage and the upper level is currently used as storage. The proposal to convert the upper story of the existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling will not involve any expansion of the structure and will, for all intents and purposes, not be a noticeable change in the property. The proposed accessory dwelling should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The principal dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling require one on-site parking space each. There is a two car November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5909 garage beneath the proposed accessory dwelling and a two car driveway, taking access off of the alley. 4. Screening and Buffers No additional screening or buffering are required for this single-family residential property. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to convert the upper floor of an existing, two story accessory structure into an accessory dwelling. The lower floor will continue to be used as a two car garage. The upper floor contains a total area of 780± square feet, 80± square feet more than the Ordinance prescribes as the maximum floor area for an accessory dwelling. The proposal involves an existing structure and there is sufficient on-site parking to meet ordinance requirements. Two story construction for accessory dwellings is permitted if the lower floor is used as a garage. Staff feels that the proposal is reasonable and should have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and of the variance to use the existing 780± square feet on the second floor as an accessory dwelling. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and noted the requested area variance. The Committee agreed that there were no outstanding issues since the structure was already in existence and there was adequate parking. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. P November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5909 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Jerry Sears, was present. There was opposition present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Hunter Stewart addressed the Commission on behalf of Mr. Sears. He offered no comments at the time but stated he would redress any comments made by those in opposition. Jean Miller, of 5315 "L" Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed accessory dwelling. She stated that she was concerned that this accessory dwelling could set a precedent resulting in increased traffic and transient activity in the neighborhood. She presented a petition signed by neighbors opposed to the accessory dwelling. Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Sears bought the property in 1990 and that the upstairs had already been framed out for a dwelling. He pointed out that there are other non -single family uses in the area. Mr. Stewart stated that the required parking was being provided for both the existing home and the proposed accessory dwelling. Commissioner Willis asked if Mr. Sears planned to live in one of the homes. Mr. Stewart responded that Mr. Sears would occupy the accessory dwelling and his mother would occupy the principal dwelling. Mr. Stewart also stated that Mr. Sears had no plans to put separate meters on the accessory dwelling. Commissioner Walker asked if the neighbors were opposed to the second dwelling or concerned about who would occupy it. Ms. Miller responded that she was concerned that Mr. Sears might sell the property and that the new owners would rent the accessory dwelling. After further discussion, Commissioner Rahman stated that there were other accessory dwellings in the neighborhood and that they had apparently created no problems. Further discussion then followed concerning the occupancy of the accessory dwelling. Commissioner Putnam stated that the structure had been in place for several years and that the proposed use should have a minimal impact on neighbors. 3 %) II November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5909 The question was called and a vote was taken. The vote was 4 ayes, 4 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstaining (McCarthy). The lack of 6 votes for or against the proposal resulted in the item being deferred to the January 10, 1995 commission meeting. A motion was made to expunge the vote. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 8 noes and 2 absent. 0 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 28 FILE NO.: G-23-222 Name• Unnamed Street Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: A 30 foot by 1301.8 foot right-of- way located within the NW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 16, T -1-N, R -13-W; west of the intersection of South Bowman Road and West 36th Street Owner/Applicant: Reauest. STAFF REVIEW• Francis and Johnette Bailey by Ruth Tyson To abandon this platted but undeveloped right-of-way. 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way The right-of-way was dedicated to the public through a warranty deed in 1975. It has never been developed and serves no residences. The right-of-way is not sufficient to serve as access to anything larger than a single residence. There appears to be no public need for this right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this public right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adiacent Streets Additional right-of-way must be dedicated for the proposed new alignment of Bowman Road. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Although dedicated, the right-of-way has never been developed. The area of the right-of-way is overgrown with brush and trees. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the right-of-way will be incorporated into a proposed new church development. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect No properties currently take access from the right-of-way since it has never been developed. The owner of a large, November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-222 undeveloped parcel to the west is opposed to the abandonment on the basis that he desires to use it as access to future development of his property. This 30 foot right-of-way would be deficient to use as access to any development of this adjoining property. The owner of property to the west also has access through property which he owns that abuts Bowman Road. 7. Neighborhood Position The abutting property owners are divided on this issue. The property owner at the end of the right-of-way, to the west, is opposed to its abandonment. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities This right-of-way, although platted, has never been developed. There are no utilities within the right-of-way and all utility companies have approved the abandonment without retaining any easement rights. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the abutting property owners to the south of the right-of-way; Francis and Johnette Bailey. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues There are no public welfare and safety issues as the right- of-way is not currently developed or in use. Abandonment of the right-of-way will allow for the joining of the two abutting properties, forming a larger, more usable tract of land for a future, new church development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this dedicated, but undeveloped right-of-way subject to the required right-of-way for the new alignment of Bowman Road being dedicated. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicants were present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee of the situation with the property owner to the west. The applicants presented a map showing the ownership of property in the area and made the contention that the property owner to the west had access through his own property to Bowman Road. 2 1 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 28 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-222 After a brief discussion of the requirement to dedicate right-of- way for Bowman Road, the Committee forwarded the item to the full commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicants were present at the meeting but left prior to the discussion of this item. Everette Martin, attorney for those in opposition, was also present earlier but had left prior to discussion of the item. Staff informed the Commission that information had just been received which, in effect, eliminated this item from consideration. Although the right-of-way was dedicated to the public through a warranty deed in 1975, it had never been accepted by the public. D. V. Boatman, who sold the property to the Bailey's less and except this 30 foot strip which was intended to be a right-of-way dedication, filed at 11:22 a.m. on November 29, 1994 a "notice of revocation, withdrawal and cancellation of land dedicated to the public." The result being that the property belongs to Mr. Boatman and there is no right-of-way abandonment issue for the Commission to consider. Staff recommended that the Commission withdraw the item from the agenda. A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved with a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 3 }) 1 November 29, 1994 8 ITEM NO.• 29 FILE NO.: G-23-223 Name: Rock Street Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: That portion of Rock Street between East Markham and East 2nd Streets Owner/Applicant: Central Arkansas Library System by Bobby Roberts Request: To abandon that portion of the Rock Street right-of-way located south of East Markham Street and north of East 2nd Street. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way No businesses front onto this block of right-of-way. The street is only one block long and dead -ends at the interstate exit ramp. Both Cumberland and Commerce Streets, one block east and west of Rock Street, are through -streets and better serve for access north and south. There is no public need for this right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain This 60 foot by 301 foot right-of-way contains a 35 foot wide paved street, with curb, gutter and sidewalk. No business fronts directly onto the street other than the vacant Fones building. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the former right-of-way will be incorporated into the new Central Arkansas Library System's main branch development as driveway and parking. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect No businesses front directly onto this block of Rock Street other than the vacant Fones Building which is proposed to be November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-223 the Central Arkansas Library System's main library. Through traffic in the area uses either Cumberland or Commerce Street since Rock Street dead -ends at the interstate exit ramp. There should be no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position All adjoining property owners have agreed to the abandonment. No other neighborhood position has been voiced. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities The entire right-of-way is to be retained as a utility and drainage easement. A new 24 foot wide access drive will be built in the former right-of-way. There will be no effect on public services or utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the Central Arkansas Library System (City of Little Rock) and Dwight Shaer. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of this right-of-way will allow for the development of the new Central Arkansas Library System's main library and parking lots which will benefit the public welfare and which will not adversely affect the public safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this right-of-way subject to the area of the abandoned right-of-way being retained as a public utility and drainage easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and a site plan of the proposed new library development. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. Fa l l 1 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-223 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and recommended for approval with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 1 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 30 FILE NO.: G-23-224 Name: Block 36, Original City of Little Rock Alley Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: Within the block bounded by East 2nd Street, East Markham Street, Rock Street and Cumberland Street Owner/Applicant: Central Arkansas Library System by Bobby Roberts Reauest: To abandon a 20 foot wide, east - west alley right-of-way located within Block 36, Original City of Little Rock. STAFF REVIEW: 1. Public Need for This Right -of -Way The alley has been fenced off and inaccessible to the public for years. Once abandoned, the alley will serve as a service drive for the adjacent properties. 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 There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The 20 foot by 304± foot right-of-way contains a gravel alley and the remnants of an old railroad bed. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of the alley will be incorporated into the proposed new Central Arkansas Library Systems main branch development as a service drive. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The Central Arkansas Library System owns all property abutting the alley but one. All involved property owners have approved the abandonment. The alley is now fenced off and its abandonment will have no effect on the neighborhood. November 29® 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 30 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-224 7. Neighborhood Position All abutting property owners have approved the abandonment. No other 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 service drive and will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. There will be no effect on public services or utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights extend to the Central Arkansas Library System (City of Little Rock) and Ellis Melton. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning the alley right-of-way will allow for the development of the new Central Arkansas Library System main library which will benefit the public welfare. The alley is to be fenced off. The Little Rock Fire Department must be given a means to open the gates for access to the back of the buildings which abut the alley. 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 and drainage easement. The Little Rock Fire Department must be provided a means to open the gates to have 24 hour access to the rear of the buildings which abut the alley. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10® 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and a plan showing the overall development of the proposed new library. The Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. 2 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 30 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-224 The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and recommended for approval with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 0 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 31 FILE NO.: G-25-168 Name: Adour Drive - Street Name Change Location: Adour Drive, located west of Chambery Drive in the St. Charles Addition Petitioner: Winrock Development Company by Richard Rogers Recruest: To change the name of Adour Drive to Governor's Drive. 1. Abutting Uses and Ownerships Adour Drive is a 120 foot long, stub -street. Two single family residences have frontage on the street but take their addresses from Chambery Drive. Both property owners have approved the name change. 2. Neighborhood Effect The name change will have no effect on the neighborhood. 3. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. Both abutting property owners have approved the change. 4. Effect on Public Services There will be no effect on public services as no properties currently have an Adour Drive address. STAFF ANALYSIS: Winrock Development Company is proposing to develop a new residential subdivision to the west of St. Charles. Adour Drive will enter that subdivision from the east. The developer proposes to rename the street Governor's Drive which will then extend into this new residential development, The Villages of Wellington. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed name change. November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 31 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-25-168 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and recommended for approval with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 Novembe_ � 9 , 1"A } ITEM NO.: 32 Z -1716-D Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Lou Schickel Lou Schickel by Joe White Highway 10 and Southridge Drive Rezone from R-2 to 0-3 Office 2.2 acres Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Fire Station, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone a 2.2 acre tract fromtR-2 to 0-3. The site is located on the north side of Arkansas State Highway 10, just east of the fire station at the corner of Highway 10 and Southridge. The property has approximately 350 feet of frontage on Highway 10 and an equal amount of street frontage on Southridge. As of this writing, some type of office development is planned for the acreage; no specific plans have been submitted to the staff. The property is currently occupied by a single family residence. The land increases in elevation from Highway 10 to Southridge, but the grade change should create any problems for developing the site. Zoning is R-2, MF -6, 0-3, C-1, C-3, PCD and OS. The property in question is surrounded by R-2 and the zoning on the north side of Highway 10 is primarily R-2. The most recent -rec-las-sif-i-cation --was for- a PCD at the corner of Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Drive. Land use is similar to the existing zoning pattern and includes single family, multi -family, commercial and a church. A high percentage of the land in the immediate vicinity is undeveloped, including the C-2 at Pleasant Ridge and Highway 10 and the 0-3 parcel at Highway 10 and Rodney Parham. There is a long and involved zoning history on this site, which dates back to 1983. November �9, 15_=,) SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 32 Z -1716-D (Cont.) • September 1983 - an 0-3 application was filed. There was strong opposition from the Walton Heights neighborhood and the request was denied by the Planning Commission. (No appeal was made to the Board of Directors.) • December 1983 - a PCD was approved by the Planning Commission, but denied by the Board of Directors. Again, Walton Heights objected to the PCD and presented a petition with 372 names opposed to the request. • February 1985 - an 0-2 rezoning was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. There was neighborhood opposition and the request was denied by the Board of Directors. • March 1994 - a PCD was filed and included a convenience store (with gas pumps), enclosed car wash and a restaurant. The PCD was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. There was strong neighborhood opposition to the proposed PRD. Of all the previous attempts to reclassify this site, staff only supported the 0-2 request in 1985. In 1984 a planning study was undertaken by the city and recommended office use for the area east of the fire station. The adopted plan, River Mountain, shows the site as part of a "Transition Zone" area which recommends either multifamily or office uses. Therefore, an office reclassification is a reasonable option. The "Transition Zone" areas are found east and west of Southridge. Other land use categories are single family, multifamily, office commercial and public. Because of the property's location, the entrance to Walton Heights, and other concerns, staff's position is that 0-2 is more appropriate for the property. 0-2 is a site plan review district and would provide the neighborhood and the city another level of review prior to a building permit being issued. This site is within the boundaries of the Highway 10 Overlay District and the site plan review will ensure--compliance-with-the overlay requirements. Access is another potential issue that will need to be looked at very carefully. Supporting 0-2 is consistent with the 1985 request and recent office reclassifications in other designated "Transition Zones." Fa November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 32 FILE NO.: Z -1716-D LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The request is in the River Mountain District. The adopted Plan recommends Transition Zone. An office use is permitted; however an "'O-1" or A10-211 classification would be recommended. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Highway 10 is classified as a principal arterial, and the right- of-way standard is 55 feet from the centerline. Dedication of additional right-of-way will be required because the existing right-of-way is deficient. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of 0-2, and not the requested 0-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) The applicant, Lou Schickel, was present. There were several other interested persons in attendance, including residents of the Walton Heights neighborhood. Mr. Schickel spoke and amended the request from 0-3 to 0-2. There was no further discussion on the item. The Planning Commission then voted on the amended request to 0-2. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent to recommend approval of the 0-2 rezoning. 91 November 29, 1994 ITEM NO.: 33 FILE NO.: Z-5108 NAME: REVOCATION OF MCCRARY -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 1401 S. Pulaski St. DEVELOPER: Carlton McCrary 1401 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 0.16 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD APPROVED USES: Single -Family Residence and Research and Development PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 7 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None BACKGROUND AND REQUEST: On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a PRD for the restoration of an unused firehouse structure. The structure contained approximately 3,300 square feet on each of its two floors. The upper level was to be used for the applicant's residence. On the lower level, approximately 40 percent of the area in the former fire equipment garage was to be used for research and development of a "Tag -a -long Stroller", an invention being developed by the applicant. On January 3, 1989, in Ordinance No. 15,618, the Board of Directors approved the PRD. In June of 1993, a complaint was received that the owner/original applicant in the PRD was repairing automobiles on the PRD site. Subsequent to that, Zoning Enforcement officers noted that the owner, Mr. McCrary, was collecting antique automobiles and restoring them on the property. Cars with dealer tags have been noted. The Zoning Enforcement personnel have a copy of an -agplicat-ion--f-o-r--f-r--om-the- Arkansas -State -Police- for a- used motor vehicle dealer license for I. I. Inc./Tony McCrary Motors, located at 1401 S. Pulaski. The license and the accompanying insurance and surety bond are for I. I., Inc., dba Tony McCrary Motors, 1401 S. Pulaski St. The Arkansas State Police inspection report states that the "Place of business is used primarily for the sale -of used motor vehicles"; that there is a "sign identifying the business as a used motor vehicle dealership which is legible from the street"; that there is a "telephone number listed in the name of the business; that the dealer has a license; etc. This report is dated August 12, 1994. November 25, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 33 FILE NO.: Z-5108 Mr. McCrary has been given a warning notice by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and has been notified that the car dealer and repair activity is not in compliance with his approved PRD. He has failed to respond to the communications from the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, except to state that he contests the assertions by the inspector. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action to recommend revocation of the PRD to the Board of Directors, and that the zoning of the property revert to its former C-3 status. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 10, 1994) No one was present to represent the applicant. Staff reported that Mr. McCrary had been notified that the requested revocation had been placed on the agenda for the November 29, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, and that the Subdivision Committee meeting was to be held on November 10. Staff reviewed the information concerning the apparent violation of the PRD zoning with the Committee members, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff presented the request from Zoning Enforcement to revoke the applicant's PRD; however, the applicant nor anyone to represent him was present. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the January 10, 1995 hearing dated, and the motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 K•A z LU co 1 LU z i L11 oomoa moa 1 -. �o©o©aoo��oo o�oe0000��oe oa000000 foo v-�ovovoo oe ©_��Do©oaElo av0000vo��oo ©oovvono��oa o0v0oo�o/loo won Immommom a©a0000mmoo oovva000moo ooa00000�wa u� emmummummmom 00000000uav ■■■■■■■■■■■■ eoaooa000moo mommamumm oo 000000a Ioo moa0000mrioo 000©oe©omoo Immommummmom 000000 o�aoo ElmommummanOEM Emmumommommaom flommmammemlem o©ooemomioo 0000a0000mao Noovvooeomoo momommmm mme oa00000elammmmummom e��av vooaoaoouov Smamememmumm EMEEMS r • as ■ • K•A z LU co 1 LU z i L11 1 u� K•A z LU co 1 LU z i L11 November 29, 1994 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Date Chairman