The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpc_05 03 1994subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 3, 1994 12:30 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number. Ii. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Minutes were approved as mailed. III. Presentation of the Consent Agenda Staff presented the several items for consideration. IV. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Diane Chachere, Chairman Brad Walker John McDaniel Jerilyn Nicholson Kathleen Oleson Bill Putnam Joe Selz Ron Woods Emmett Willis, Jr. Ramsay Ball B. J. Wyrick None Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MAY 3, 1994 DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Shackleford Industrial Park -- Preliminary Plat (5-1003) B. Camp Addition -- Preliminary Plat (5-1008) C. Enderlin Mini -Storage -- Short -Form PCD (Z -5550-A) & Enderlin Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (5-1006) D. Perkins Subdivision, Lot 1 -- Short -Form PCD (Z-5806) E. Zu Zu's -- CUP (Z -5524-B) F. Byrd Daycare Center -- CUP (Z-5797) G. The Washing Well -- Short -Form PCD (Z -4624-C) PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Scott Hamilton Addition No. 2, Lot 3, -- Preliminary Plat (5-61-E) 2. Four Oaks Living Center Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1018) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: 3. Marcie Heien -- Short -Form POD (Z -2058-B) 4. Andover Square, Phase V, -- Amended Short -Form PRD (Z -2904-C) 5. Parker Cadillac Body Shop -- Short -Form PCD (Z -3606-A) 6. Rees Development -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -5756-A) 7. South Hill Terrace Addition -- Short -Form POD (Z-5817) SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 8. Entergy Five -Year Master Plan -- Site Plan Review (Z -3407-A) 9. Walgreens Baseline and Geyer Springs -- Site Plan Review (Z -5318-A) Planning Commission Agenda, May 3, 1994 9a. Walgreens Twelfth and Fair Park -- Site Plan Review (Z -2970-C) 10. Mike Litwa 315 N. Shackleford -- Site Plan Review (5-1019) 11. CareNetwork -- Site Plan Review (5-1020) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 12. Williams Magnet School -- CUP (Z -5235-A) 13. St. Michael's Episcopal Church -- Revised CUP (Z -5535-A) 14. Alltel -- CUP (Z-5815) 15. Land Duplex -- CUP (Z-5819) 16. The Anthony School -- CUP (Z-5820) 17. Campbell Accessory Dwelling -- CUP (Z-5824) 18. Four Oaks Living Center -- CUP (Z -3173-B) REZONING: 19. 2817 W. 15th. St. (Lot 6, Block 10, Worthen & Brown Addition) -- Rezoning from I-2 to 0-3 (Z -5484-A) May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: 5-1003 NAME: SHACKLEFORD INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATION: On the east side of Shackleford Road, approximately 0.2 miles south of Colonel Glenn Road DEVELOPER: KELTON BROWN, SR. 13,700 Beckenham Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-2111 AREA: 10.65 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 ZONING• I-1 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 ENGINEER• ROBERT D. HOLLOWAY 200 Casey Drive Little Rock, AR 72118 851-8806 FT. NEW STREET: 650 PROPOSED USES: Industrial VARIANCES REQUESTED: Improvements to Shackleford Road STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of an industrial park. The site is a 10.65 acre tract, and the creation of 8 industrial lots is proposed. Shackleford road borders the site on the west, and a single internal street totaling 650 feet in length is proposed. The applicant proposes 50 foot building set -back lines along the internal street frontages; 70 foot along Shackleford Road. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east property line. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat for the development of a 8 -lot industrial park subdivision. The site is a 10.65 acre tract. One cul-de-sac internal street is proposed with a total length of 650 feet. The internal street is proposed to be constructed to Master Street Plan standards; no improvements to Shackleford Road are planned, although dedication of the required right-of-way is proposed. The Zoning Regulations specify a 70 foot front building line in the I-1 zoning district; the applicant proposes to conform to the required setback on the Shackleford frontage, but proposes a 50 foot setback along the internal street. A 100 foot building line is proposed along the east boundary of the subdivision as a buffer to the residential area beyond. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1003 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is mostly cleared, with the remains of the former use as a construction yard on the site. To the north is the site of the approved but as yet undeveloped "Buie Mini -storage PCD11. Presently that site is occupied by a non -conforming junk yard use. To the west and south is additional I-1 property. Along the east property line is a 50 foot wide OS strip, with R-2 property beyond. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office reports that the internal street layout must be redesigned to meet minimum Master Street Plan standards. The double cul-de-sacs design does not meet that standard. Dedication of right-of-way along Shackleford Road and improvements of Shackleford Road to Master Street Plan standards is required. The Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable to this development. (Engineering advises that the applicant needs to file an application for a State permit.) PAGIS monuments must be shown. A name for the proposed internal street must be shown. Water Works indicates that a water main extension will be required. A pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00 per front foot applies in addition to the normal connection charge for connections off Shackleford Road. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The application and Bill of Assurance indicate that the name of the proposed subdivision is Shackleford Road Industrial Park. The plat shows the name as Shackleford Industrial Park, leaving out "Road". Make the information consistent. The plat shows the width of the right-of-way of the internal street, but does not show the width or location of the street. This needs to be shown. 2 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1003 Both the names and the book and page number or instrument number of the recording of all abutting subdivisions must be shown. where the abutting property is not subdivided, the names of the owners of that property must be shown. This information is not complete on the plat. The zoning classifications of abutting properties are to be shown. This is incomplete on the plat. A certificate of preliminary surveying accuracy is required to be included on the plat. This has been omitted. The I-1 zoning district requires site plan review by the Planning Commission prior to development. Each lot will have to be reviewed in the Commission as development is undertaken. E. ANALYSIS• There are fundamental problems with the design of this subdivision involving the layout of the internal street not meeting Master Street Plan standards, yet there is not a lot of flexibility for modifying the layout. The applicant needs to confer with the City Engineering office as a re -design is considered. The remaining deficiencies can be easily remedied. The anticipated use is in conformance with the zoning and the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this request pending a re -design of the internal street. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1993) No one was present to present this item. Staff reported that a FAX had been received from the project engineer, Mr. Robert Holloway, indicating that a deferral was being requested until the February 8, 1994 Planning Commission hearing. The item, then, was not reviewed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 4, 1994) Staff reported that the item could be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the February 8, 1994 hearing. The deferral was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, no nays, 4 absent, and no abstentions. 3 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 STAFF UPDATE The applicant has submitted a second request for a deferral of this item. A letter dated January 20, 1994 was received in which the applicant requests a deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission hearing. The applicant has indicated that he has negotiated with a buyer for the development of a significant portion of the proposed site, and that this is necessitating a substantive re -design of the site. It is noted that, pursuant to the Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section E, paragraph 9-b, the second deferral will require a renotificaiton of the property abutting property owners, and pursuant to paragraph 9-d, there can be no additional deferrals granted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Since the request for the additional deferral had been received, this fact was related to the Committee, and there was no discussion of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant's engineer, dated January 20, 1994, requesting a second deferral to the March 22, 1994 Commission meeting. The request to defer the item was included in the Consent Agenda, and the approval of the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, no nays, one open position, no abstentions, and one open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Neither the applicant nor the engineer were present. Staff indicated that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted, and that Engineering was reviewing the drawing. Staff reminded the Committee that no one had been present for either of the previous two Subdivision Committee meetings when the item was scheduled; the applicant had asked for deferrals on each of the two previous agendas, and had not made a presentation at the Committee meeting. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for a determination of the action to be taken in this situation and, if appropriate, to conduct the public hearing. 4 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1003 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff related that the applicant has not presented the revised plat to the Subdivision Committee for review and comment, nor has the City Engineering Division prepared comments on the revised drawing. Staff reported that the Subdivision Committee had expressed concern that the applicant's engineer has failed to make the required presentation on 3 scheduled reviews (for the original review plus the 2 deferrals). Therefore, staff recommends that the item be deferred until the May 3, 1994 hearing to allow the Committee and staff the opportunity to properly review the submittal through the standard review process. Bob Holloway, the project engineer, explained that the applicant had been in negotiations for the sale of a large portion of the tract during the time of the first Subdivision Committee meeting, and that this had necessitated a total re -design of the plat and consequently the request for the deferral. Now, he continued, the design is finalized and he has been in contact with the City Engineering office and, he advised, there are no issues to be resolved. He related that he had simply not been reminded of the Committee meetings, and had forgotten to attend; that it was an oversight and not a matter of not wanting to attend. Commissioner Oleson commented that the applicant should make the required presentation to the Committee. Commissioner Nicholson commented that there should be consistency in enforcement of the requirement for making a presentation to the Subdivision Committee. Commissioner Putnam asked Mr. Holloway if there would be a problem with a deferral, to which Mr. Holloway responded that there would be no problem. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if he would propose a deferral. Mr. Holloway responded that he thought that all requirements had been met and was unaware of any problems. He asked for clarification of any problems. Commissioner Nicholson responded that Mr. Holloway needed to attend the Subdivision Committee meeting to find out what the problems are and to work out any problems with staff at that time. Mr. Holloway then asked the Commission to defer the hearing on the request until the May 3, 1994 meeting. 5 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1003 A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the request, and the motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Kelton Brown, and his engineer, Robert Holloway, were present. Staff presented the request, indicating that the configuration of the internal street and lots had undergone substantial change since the original submission. Staff and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Brown and Mr. Holloway the comments in the discussion outline. Mr. Holloway confirmed that the name of the subdivision is to be Shackleford Industrial Park; not Shackleford Road Industrial Park. He also confirmed that the request for a waiver of street improvements along Shackleford Road had been deleted; the applicant will make the required Master Street Plan improvements on Shackleford Road. Staff pointed out the deficiencies of the plan: that contours are to be at 2 foot intervals, not 5 foot; and, that the plan must show that Shackleford Road is to be built, and show the width to be constructed. The Committee members confirmed with Mr. Holloway that he had reviewed the discussion outline and had no further questions. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there are no remaining issues; that all additions and modifications to the plans had been made as required by the Subdivision Committee. 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. 0 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1008 NAME: CAMP ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of Robinwood Drive, north and east of the Hillandale Drive intersection DEVELOPER: MARCIA C. CAMP 75 Robinwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72207 225-8619 AREA: 10.54 ACRES for Lot 1, plus 0.46 ACRES for Lot 2, plus 0.14 ACRES for the separate access easement ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 ENGINEER: JOE WHITE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which requires that every lot abut upon a public street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the creation of a site on which to build a new home. The preliminary plat encompasses a 10.54 acre tract as Lot 1 and the re -plating of Lot 68 in Robinwood Subdivision as Lot 2 of the new subdivision. The 10.54 acre tract is landlocked, with no frontage on a public street and with no common property line with Lot 2. To provide access to the site, the applicant proposes to provide a private drive in a 20 foot wide by 450 foot long access easement across two properties. The applicant proposes: 1) to re -plat Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, on which her current residence is situated, and which has frontage on a public street, as Lot 2 of the new subdivision to separate off a 20 foot wide by the 150 foot depth of the lot for a portion of the access easement; and 2) on property to the north which is contiguous to both her current residential lot and to her proposed building site, and in which the applicant also owns an interest, to separate off the remainder of the needed access easement, a 20 foot wide by 300 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 foot long, 0.14 acre, strip of land. This access easement is also proposed to be a utility easement for access of utilities to the building site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat which entails creation of a two -lot subdivision with access to be provided to the newly created building site by way of a private drive in an access easement. The applicant proposes to construct a new home on a 10.54 acres tract, and proposes to provide the needed access by re -platting the lot on which her current residence is located, and which has frontage on a public street, and dedicating a portion of the needed easement across this lot; and, by designating the remainder of the needed access on abutting land in which the applicant has an undivided interest, but across which she has been granted an access easement. Utility access is also proposed to be gained by way of the easement. The applicant requests approval from the Board of Directors of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations which restricts the creation of lots which do not have minimum frontage on a public street or, where expressly approved by the Planning Commission, a private street, and thus allow her to gain access to her lot by way of an access easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed building site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. This site lies north of the Robinwood Subdivision and has no frontage on a public or private street. The applicant's current residence, Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, has 135 feet of frontage on Robinwood Drive. There is no common property line lying between Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision and the 10.54 acre proposed building site. The current zoning of the tract is R-2, Single Family Residential. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office has no comments. water works indicates that a water main extension and possibly a private fire hydrant will be required. At the minimum, a 3" water main extension will be required to be provided by the developer. If the Fire Department requires a fire hydrant, then the water line extension will have to be an 8" line. P%1 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main is located on the property; however, easements must be provided. The applicant needs to contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot utility easement around the perimeter of the newly created lot, and notes that the easement at the rear of Lot 68, the applicant's current residential lot, is a 10 foot easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement at the perimeter of the new lot. The Fire Department comments that a fire hydrant must be located on the 10.54 acre tract. A 20 foot wide all weather drive will be required, and sufficient turning radius will be required so that a fire truck can have access to the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations requires: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved the planning commission." (Section 31-207 of the Regulations explains: "Private streets... shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved ... to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards....") The applicant reports that, on the tract in which she has an interest and which abuts both her current and her proposed homesites, she has a deed for an access easement which connects the two sites. If the Commission approves the creation of the land -locked subdivision, and the Board of Directors approves the waiver of the Regulations, the applicant will need to furnish proof of the easement. A survey of the existing home site, Lot 68, will need to be provided in order to determine if proper access can be gained by way of the proposed access easement. With the Fire Department requiring a 20 foot drive and the proposed access easement being 20 feet wide, an adjustment in the width of the proposed easement may be made necessary. The information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat needs to be completed; e.g., the physical description of all monuments is to be furnished; 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 the proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown; the Surveying and Engineering Certifications are to be executed; a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted; etc. E. ANALYSIS: The deficiencies in information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat are minimal, and can be easily remedied. The problem with the submission is the question of access. The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit the creation of subdivisions and lots which do not have proper access. Access is defined as have minimum frontage on a street, and the street which is provided is to meet the requirements of the Regulations. A private drive crossing two other tracts in an access easement is far removed from the standard which is provided in the Regulations. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request to create the landlocked lot and denial of the request for the waiver from the Subdivision Regulations. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Staff presented the proposal. Mr. Joe white, the engineer for the project and Mrs. Marcia Camp, the applicant, were present. The discussion outline was reviewed with the applicant and her engineer. The discussion centered around the fact that the proposed lot has no frontage on a street, and that access is proposed to be provided by way of an access easement. The applicant explained that she owns Lot 68 which fronts on Robinwood Drive, and will re -plat that lot to dedicate a portion of the needed access easement; and, that she holds an undivided interest in the property to the north of Lot 68 which also abuts her proposed building site, and that she has a deed for an access easement crossing that site to provide the remainder of the needed access. Staff indicated that, in lieu of the access easement, a "pipestem" lot might provide a better alternative. The lot would then have frontage on a street. Creation of a pipestem lot would necessitate a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations, since pipestem lots are also prohibited. Since the property to the north of the applicant's current residence and in which she has an undivided interest would also have to be subdivided to extract a portion of the pipestem, either the owners of that property would have to undertake subdivision of that property or a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations from that requirement would also have to be pursued. Staff indicated 4 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 that staff could not support creation of the subdivision as it is currently proposed. Mrs. Camp then related that she does, indeed, have title to the portion of the land which is designated to be an access easement, so creation of a pipestem lot could be undertaken. Staff responded that such a sale whereby the 20 foot by 300 foot parcel is sold off of the larger tract constitutes a subdivision and would be an illegal subdivision of the land. Mr. White indicated that he would review the deed and make changes in the design to delineate a pipestem lot, and he would provide the additional information noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the request and indicated that the recommendation from staff was for denial. Staff explained that the tract is land -locked, and that access is proposed by way of access easements across two other properties; that the access easements are proposed to be 20 feet in width; that the fire department has commented that there will be a requirement for a 20 foot wide drive for proper fire department equipment access; and, that, staff continued, a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot easement provided inadequate space for a shoulder. Marcia Camp, the applicant, related that she had been told by the Neighborhoods and Planning staff that pipe stem lots formed with easements are often used to provide access to land locked lots, for instance in the Heights, to access property which are nice lots, but do not have frontage on a street. Therefore, she continued, she bought the land -locked parcel behind her home. She explained that the pipe -stem would be formed, in part, from land in which she has a one-fourth interest, and, in part , from land which she owns; therefore, she commented, it is quite simple to get access to the site. She said that she had gone through all the steps necessary to provide the access easement. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if she would like a deferral to allow her to do further investigation on the remaining questions and problems mentioned by staff. Mrs. Camp responded that she would ask for a deferral. Joe White, representing the project pipe -stem lots are routinely used to land -locked lots; however, he agreed appropriate. 5 engineer, interjected that provide access to otherwise that a deferral would be May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO • S-1008 A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the matter until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Joe white was present, and confirmed that the application had been changed: in lieu of a landlocked lot with access by way of an easement, the plat would be a 2 lot plat with a pipestem providing frontage of one of the lots on Robinwood Drive, and the second lot being a replat of the existing Lot 68 of Robinwood Addition. The pipestem would be created from a 20 foot wide portion of Lot 68, plus the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract at the rear of Lot 68. Mr. white confirmed that the applicant had been deeded the tract for the pipestem. Mr. White also informed the Committee that the fire department had relented on its requirement for a 20 foot wide drive, and would agree to the 12 foot wide drive in the 20 foot wide pipestem. Staff pointed out that the sale of the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract constituted an illegal subdivision of the tract in which the applicant owns a one-fourth interest. Either the tract from which it had been divided must be legally subdivided, or the Board of Directors will have to waive the Subdivision Regulations for the action. This waiver would be in addition to the waiver made necessary by the formation of a pipestem lot. The originally requested waiver for permission to create a land- locked tract is made moot, since the site would have frontage on Robinwood Drive via the pipestem. The Committee reviewed with Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline, and Mr. White responded that there were no questions regarding any of the comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the item. The applicant, Mrs. Marcia Camp, was present. Mrs. Camp presented an overview of her request, and confirmed that she has 100% ownership in the land which will comprise the pipestem portion of her proposed lot. She explained that she has a quitclaim deed for the portion of the pipestem which is from the property to the rear of her current home and in which she holds a one-fourth undivided interest. 2.1 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 Commissioner Putnam asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles for a definition of a pipestem lot. Mr. Giles related that a pipestem lot is one that is landlocked, and added that pipestem lots are prohibited by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff related that requests for approval of pipestem lots are taken several times per year, and these requests must be granted by the Board of Directors. Staff pointed out that Mrs. Camp, in saying that she had been deeded the land for a portion of the pipestem from land to the rear of her current home and in which she has an undivided interest, was reporting a subdivision of that land without approval by the Planning Commission, and it would be assumed that the subdivision is illegal. To create that portion of the pipestem, then, not only does the pipestem itself have to be approved as a waiver from the Ordinance by the Board of Directors, but, also, the subdivision of the tract must be approved as a wavier from the requirement to properly subdivide the tract. Commissioner Nicholson asked whether access must be provided to a landlocked tract, and asked if, indeed, the tract is landlocked or whether there are other possible access routs. Deputy City Attorney Giles reiterated that a landlocked lot is one that has no access, not one that does not have convenient access. He stated that this lot has other potential access points by way of street stub -outs from other directions. Mr. Bruce Thalheimer, the next door neighbor who abuts Mrs. Camp's property to the east, presented photographs of the area where the drive is proposed to go. He indicated that he was concerned about the retaining wall along his west property line which could be affected by construction of the drive. He stated that the creation of the pipestem was not appropriate for the neighborhood; that there are no such drives like this one in the neighborhood. He made the point that the proposal is in violation of the Robinwood Bill of Assurance. He complained that the proposed pipestem is too long; that it creates more of a real street than just a driveway. He said that he objects because the drive is right next to and will lie adjacent to his property and his retaining wall. He expressed concern about the ability of fire fighting equipment to have ready access, by way of the narrow and long drive, if a fire were to occur in the area behind his home which will be deep in the woods. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for information on the typical length of a pipestem. Staff replied that the length varies; that there is no standard or typical length. Only recently, however, a pipestem lot was approved by the Commission and Board for a plat on Nash Lane. 7 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 Commissioner Nicholson asked about the location of other access points to the tract. Staff indicated that access could be provided from the northeast or Foxcroft. Commissioner Oleson asked if streets had been platted to the north of the existing Robinwood Subdivision. Staff responded that there were no street which had been platted. In the Robinwood Subdivision plat, street stub -outs had been extended to the subdivision boundary for future development, but the area to the north is "left -over" land which has never been platted. Mr. Jackson Farrow related his objections to the proposal. He stated that the Planning Commission is charged with promoting long-term planning, and concluded that approval of the request would do nothing to further this charge; that the proposed pipestem is not good planning. He urged the Commission to either not approve the plat, or to recommend that the Board of Directors not approve the waivers. Mr. Tom Alderson asked those in attendance who were in opposition to the request to raise their hands. (A number of persons in the audience raised their hands.) He stated his and their objection to the proposal. Commissioner Putnam said that if the Commission approved the request, it would be approving an illegal subdivision. Deputy City Attorney Giles replied that the Commission would be approving a subdivision, which, once the Board approved the waiver, would legitimize what staff has interpreted as an illegal subdivision. Commissioner Putnam asked if it would be better for the waivers to be approved by the Board of Directors first, the for the request for approval of the subdivision to be heard by the Commission. Mrs. Camp explained that there is 36 feet of lawn between her home and her east property line. Beyond that, there is 6 feet from her east property line over to Mr. Thalheimer's driveway. There is, she continued, then, plenty of room for the proposed driveway, and the proposed drive is not out of character with other driveways in the subdivision; some, in fact, abut each other. He went on to say that the Robinwood Bill of Assurance required that it be extended by a vote of the Robinwood property Rl May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 owners every twenty years, and, since this was never done, the Bill of Assurance expired in 1979. Mrs. Camp explained that she, as well as most other residents of Robinwood, do not want streets built into the undeveloped area to the north; that her one house on a 10 acre tract, with access by way of a driveway, would be far superior to having a street extend northward from the stubout and run the length of the subdivision boundary. Commissioner McDaniel returned to the discussion of the assumed illegal subdivision, and asked if the Commission should support the proposal which involved an illegal subdivision of the land. He added, though, that he does not support those who want abutting property owners to provide a park -like setting for them, and that he does not support "holding hostage" people with landlocked property when the only access is by way of a pipestem. Commissioner Putnam, returning to his earlier suggestion, asked if the Commission should defer the item until the Board of Directors heard and approved the waivers. Mr. Giles stated that the Commission should not disapprove a plat simply because it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that if a plat meets the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Commission must approve it. As far as the waivers are concerned, he said, the Commission can approve the plat with the condition that the Board of Directors must approve the waivers. He said, though, that it is not a good precedent to be approving access by way of pipestems when good planning would call for proper streets and the proper subdivision of the land. Commissioner Willis asked if a street could be extended to Mrs. Camp's tract, and, if so, how far would such a street have to extend. Mrs. Camp replied that there was a street stub -out a couple of blocks to the west, but that she doubted that the property owners between that stub -out and her property would be amenable to providing right-of-way for a street. He reiterated, though, that she and the neighbors do not want a street along their back property lines. Instead, she said, it would be far less intrusive for her to build a driveway and build one home on the 10 acres than to build a street and provide multiple building sites along it. Commissioner Nicholson suggested that the Commission approve the proposed plat, but that the Commission recommend to the Board that the waivers be denied. 0 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 Commissioner walker explained that, without the pipestem, the proposed plat does not have proper access; therefore, it is deficient in meeting the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission, he said, is not bound to approve such a plat. He stated that the requested plat is a distortion of the pipestem provision in the Ordinance, and indicated that he is opposed to the plat and the waivers. He said, however, that the motion should perhaps be, as Commissioner Nicholson had suggested, for approval of the plat, contingent on the Board's approval of the waivers, but with a recommendation from the Commission that the waivers be denied. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Walker if that was his motion. He plied that it was, and the motion was approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 10 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C FILE NOS.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 NAME: ENDERLIN MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PCD (Z -5550-A) AND ENDERLIN SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT (5-1006) LOCATION: On the south side of Cooper Orbit Road, 1/4 mile west of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: AMOS ENDERLIN #5 Thad Lane Little Rock., AR 72207 227-4667 AREA: 10.65 ACRES ZONING: R-2 to PCD (R-2 to remain at area outside of PCD site) PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 ENGINEER• MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11,225 Huron Lane, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 PROPOSED USES: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Mini -Storage at PCD & existing non- conforming use to remain at area out- side PCD site VARIANCES REQUESTED: Three year deferral from the requirements to construct Master Street Plan improvements for the boundary street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Of the 10.65 acres owned, he proposes to develop 5 acres for the mini -storage use and retain the remaining 5.65 acres for his contracting business equipment and materials storage use. Proposed is a PCD for the development of 6 mini -storage buildings ranging in size from 50 feet wide by 390 feet long, to 40 feet wide by 140 feet long. An existing residential structure located on the site is shown to be retained. The applicant states that he proposes a phased development, beginning with the larger buildings along the west property line, and, when these buildings are completed and leased, to proceed with phase two to involve the smaller buildings along the east side of the PCD site. He states that he will dedicate the right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards, but that he wishes to defer the required improvements until the project enters phase two development, or for three years, whichever comes first. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres, but proposes to final plat only the PCD site at the outset. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the establishment of a PCD for development as a mini -storage facility. Six buildings are proposed. Two are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 390 feet long with 15,600 square feet in each. One is proposed to be 50 feet wide by 390 feet long with 19,500 square feet in it. These three buildings encompass phase one of the development. Three buildings are proposed to be 40 feet wide by 140 feet long with 5,600 square feet in each. These encompass phase two. The total square footage of the six buildings is 67,500 square feet. It is proposed that the building closest to the west property line be set 110 feet east of that line forming a generous buffer from the residential property to the west. An existing residential structure is shown on the site plan as being retained. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Cooper Orbit Road to Master Street Plan requirements, but he has requested that the street improvements be deferred until he has competed and leased at least the first three of the six buildings, designated as phase one, or for three years, whichever comes first. The applicant has indicated in conversations with staff that he does not propose any other uses for the PCD than "mini -storage"; no office or residential use has been requested. The applicant requests deferral of the landscape buffer requirement along the PCD property line which abuts his own non -conforming industrial use property, and requests deferral of the buffer requirement along the west property line due to the dense timber and undergrowth along this line. The applicant requests a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot for the first building until the completion of phase one development, allowing him to lease the first buildings prior to paving the lot. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to encompass the entire 10.65 acres. The area encompassing the PCD would be final platted at the outset; the remainder would remain in the preliminary plat status pending development at a later date. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The applicant's property is presently zoned R-2, but contains a legal non -conforming industrial use. (The use was existing when the area was annexed.) The applicant utilizes the property for his construction company offices, equipment storage and repair, materials and salvage storage, and leased space for similar uses. There are stacks of used 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 brick and block on that portion of the tract which is proposed to be utilized for the mini -storage facility. There is a residence which was, from conversations with the applicant, moved onto the site, but which remains vacant. The site is wooded, but with most of the underbrush being removed. The topography ranges from the low point at the northeast corner of the property at an elevation of less than 442 feet, to a high point mid -way along the east property line of 502 feet, to elevations ranging from 470 to 490 along the west property line. There are residences on the hill overlooking the site across the street and above the site on the land to the west. A mobile home park is on the land catercorner to the northeast, with commercial property being at the corner of Cooper Orbit Road and Kanis Road. There is a distinctive change in topography to the north, west, and south-west of the site where the land becomes more hilly. The applicant's site is more closely identified with the flatter land along Kanis Road. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office indicates that the Ordinance will require construction of Master Street Plan improvements along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage of the site, involving dedication of right-of-way to the minor arterial standard of a total width of 90 feet, construction of one-half of a minor arterial roadway of a total width of 60 feet, and a sidewalk. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable in the development of the site. Engineering advises that the state should be contacted for the NPDES permit. Water Works reports that a pro -rata front footage charge will apply for water service to the site. The 20 foot easement shown is a water line easement, not a non-specified "utility" easement. Wastewater Utility indicates that the site is outside the service boundary of the Utility. ARKLA Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department approved the site plan without comment. Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan review indicates that the full buffer width requirement around the perimeter of the PCD site is 21 feet. The minimum requirement is 14 feet. The proposed 10 foot eastern buffer should be increased to minimum of 14 feet. Since the adjacent 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A k 5-1006 properties are zoned residential, a 6 foot high opaque "good neighbor" wooden fence or dense vegetation is required by the Ordinance for screening purposes. Trees and shrubs are required within areas designated for buffers. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The required project narrative outlining the applicant's request and describing the character and rationale behind the request does not furnish all needed information. There is a house which is shown remaining on the PCD site, but there is no indication as to the use which it will be put, nor has the application addressed alternative or accessory uses of the PCD. If an office or on-site residence is requested, this must be noted. This information needs to be presented. A landscape plan is required. Any signage proposed for the development must be designated. A preliminary Bill of Assurance must be submitted. If the non -conforming use area is to remain in the preliminary plat status, a phasing plan for the plat needs to be shown. The configuration of the two lots within the site do not conform to the lot depth to width ratio. The requirement needs to be addressed, or the applicant needs to address the rationale for the decision, or the Commission needs to review and confirm the proposed layout. The applicant has requested a waiver, or at least a deferral, of the application of the landscape buffer requirements to the PCD site. He has noted that a buffer is required along the PCD property line abutting his own property because that property is zoned R-2. In reality, the property is a non -conforming industrial use, the site is large and wooded, and it "does not make sense" to require a fence along this internal property line. He has also noted that, along the west property line, the existing woods and undergrowth form a natural buffer, and that he is proposing to place the edge of the new parking lot development 91 feet from the western property line. He therefore requests a waiver from the buffer requirements along this west line. The applicant request a deferral of the requirement to pave the parking lot of the phase one development until that phase is completed. He proposes to provide a gravel drive area for tenant use while he is constructing the second and third buildings, and proposes to lease the first building during the construction of these buildings. The Planning staff reports that the proposed use is in conflict with the land use plan for this area and would be a major change in the plan. The proposed PCD is in the Ellis 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Mountain District, and the plan recommends the area for single-family development. The Planning staff admits, however, that the plan may need to be updated and the delineation between single-family and other transitional uses may need to be refined. At present, the delineation line lies along a small creek immediately to the east of the applicant's property. It may well be more appropriately located along the crest of the hill to the west. The applicant's property may be better designated as being in a "transitional" area. In any case, if the Commission approves the PCD request, then an amendment to the Land Use Plan will be required. E. ANALYSIS• The site, the applicant maintains, is not a good candidate for single-family development because of its topography; the proximity to the mobile home park and to Kanis Road; the lack of sewer and natural gas and the high cost of water service; and the lack of residential development in the area. The applicant feels that if he is to make use of the property in another way than his non -conforming industrial use, a mini -storage use should be an appropriate alternative. The mini -storage does not need the utility services. Other mini -storage facilities owned by the applicant, he reports, have very little traffic and close at sundown, so the use should not be objectionable to residential neighbors. Comments received from abutting and area landowners have ranged from objections to a feeling that a mini -storage facility would be an improvement to the construction equipment and materials storage that presently occupies the entire site. The site involves 10.65 acres, with divisions of 5 acres or greater. The Subdivision Ordinance allows subdivisions of land of 5 acres or greater without Planning Commission review. There is a concern about the configuration of the two "lots" and their not meeting the depth to width ratio. Each of these "lots", however, is 5 acres or greater. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request due to the conflict with the adopted land use plan. If the commission approves the request, a land use study and plan amendment would be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) The applicant, Mr. Amos Enderlin, and the engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff presented the item and the concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Enderlin explained 5 `May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 his position that the site is unsuited for residential development, that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get the property zoned I-2 last year, and that, if he were going to be able to make use of his property, he needed some other option than residential uses. He related that he felt that a mini - storage facility is an acceptable use which is compatible with the residential uses to the north and west, and with the mobile home park to the northeast with the commercial uses along Kanis Road to the east. Mr. Enderlin objected to the characterization of the site as a "dump site" for his demolition activities, but said that he does have salvage materials properly stored on the site. The concern about the configuration of the lots and their not meeting the lot depth to width ratio was brought up by staff. Mr. Enderlin responded that, because of the topography of the site and trying to develop that portion that would allow for proper siting of the buildings, he needed to divide the property as presented in the plans. Following the review and conversation, the Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 8, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had provided additional information to indicate: 1) that the existing residential structure located on the property is to be used for a resident managers apartment and office; 2) a request for a deferral of interior driveway paving until the completion of Phase I; 3) a request for a deferral of the landscaping requirements along the west property line and along the internal property line which abuts the applicant's property until the area is annexed to the City; 4) a request to the Board of Directors for a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirement for a lot depth to width ratio not to exceed 3:1 to allow the "sawtooth" shaped lot to be approved; and 5) a request to the Board of Directors for a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements for construction of one-half of Cooper Orbit Road and construction of a sidewalk along the Cooper Orbit Road frontage for a period not to exceed three (3) years, or until the completion of Phase I construction. Staff reported that approval of the PCD would require a Land Use Plan amendment; that the current use of the site is for residential development, although the mobile home use cater- corner across the street to the northeast a non-residential use, and that the limits of non-residential uses lie along Mr. Enderlin's property's eastern property line. The Planning Staff had reported, staff related, that Mr. Enderlin's property and the property lying along Cooper Orbit Road for a distance further west could possibly be designated as a "transitional" zone use area. The appropriate use of the site was the important question needing discussion. 0 °May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Staff also reported that the owner of abutting property had contacted staff to report that he had not seen the required sign posted and had not gotten certified mail notification of the hearing. Staff reported that the sign had, indeed, been posted; that staff had witnessed the sign being in place thirty (30) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and on two (2) subsequent site visits. Staff confirmed that the certified list from the title company had not included the neighbor's name, consequently he had not been notified by mail, but that the applicant had met the requirements of the bylaws by getting a certified list from the title company and mailing the required letters by certified mail to those whose names appeared on the list. Evidence of the mailing has been furnished to staff. Chairperson Chachere called on the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Enderlin reported that he wished to construct a mini -storage facility on land he owns on Cooper Orbit Road. Initially, he continued, he wanted to build the mini -storage units on about one-half of his property and leave the remaining one-half for his use for his demolition contracting business. He explained that the reason that the property was being divided into two "sawtooth" -shaped lots was due to the topography of the site; that the area designated for the mini -storage lends itself best to the development and forms a natural division between the proposed development and the area to remain in its current situation. Mr. Enderlin continued that he wished to start renting storage units as soon as he got the first building completed, but wished to delay paving the driveway until several buildings were built and Phase I was complete. Since there is, Mr. Enderlin explained, dense woods which lie along the west property line, and since the development anticipates leaving 91 feet from the west property line to the edge of the new development, it is felt that adding landscaping along this west property line is unnecessary; consequently, a deferral is requested. Since, Mr. Enderlin went on to say, the PCD site takes about one-half of his property, leaving an internal lot line which the Landscaping Regulations require to be landscaped, and Mr. Enderlin sees no point in providing this landscaping along his own abutting property, he asked for a deferral of this landscaping requirement. Since, Mr. Enderlin concluded, the Master Street Plan designates Cooper Orbit Road as a minor arterial roadway, adding pavement and curb and gutter to provide one-half of a 60 foot roadway for such a short section of Cooper Orbit Road, especially when the grades may change when the roadway is fully developed, seems unreasonable; consequently the deferral is requested. Chairperson Chachere then called on those who oppose the proposed development to present their position. 7 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 Jo Jackson identified herself as President of the Board of the Oasis Renewal Center. The Oasis, she continued, is located across Cooper Orbit Road and about 500 feet further to the west. The Center is a Christian retreat, and the Center's Board is in opposition to the proposed mini -storage facility; the Board wants to keep the area quiet, rustic, country -like, and a place of beauty for people to be able to enjoy; they want people to be able to come to the Center's restaurant and enjoy the peaceful setting. Ms. Jackson reported that she had a letter from the Board which outlined their objection to the proposed development. Karen Owings identified herself as representing residents of the Spring valley neighborhood which lies along Cooper Orbit Road further to the west from Mr. Enderlin's property. She reported that 50 residents representing 36 homes had signed a petition in opposition to the proposed development. She explained that the entire area is residential, with the exception of Lake Nixon on the south and Enderlin's property on the north; that approving the development would only add another non -conforming use to the area. She complained that Mr. Enderlin was wanting to waive every one of the requirements for landscaping, buffers, and road improvements. Jane Bristow identified herself as living directly across the street from Mr. Enderlin's property. She said that, in the past, Mr. Enderlin had sought to re -zone the property for a concrete batch plant, but that she has heard that he this was not what he really wanted to do with the site; that he had sought re -zoning, saying that he was going to do one thing and really planned to do another. Therefore, she wondered what Mr. Enderlin was really trying to do this time. She went on to say that she would not mind mini -storage buildings on the site; what is there now is devaluing the property; but, since he has never done anything to improve the area, she did not feel that he could be relied on to do what he says he will do this time. John Burnett identified himself as the owner of over 200 acres which lie beyond Cooper Orbit Road between the Oasis Center and Spring valley. He complained that Cooper Orbit Road is the only access to 1000 acres of prime development land, and a mini - storage facility does not make a good entrance for the future development of the area. Mr. Enderlin responded that his mini -storage facility would create little traffic, in fact, much less than the Oasis creates. He said that he is developing a mini -storage facility on Maumelle Blvd., and that he proposes to make the facility on the proposed site look good; that it will be an improvement to what is there now, and that eventually he plans to phase out the construction yard use. F 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Staff reported that Ms. Bristow's concerns about ulterior motives are unfounded, since the current development request is for a PCD. In the PCD, the uses, building layout, landscaping, buffers, etc. are set; that the development has to conform to the approved plan or it doesn't go in at all. Staff reiterated that there is 90 feet of separation between the west property line and the proposed development, and that the applicant had requested no waivers or deferrals of landscaping along the front of the property or the landscaping required in the interior of the development; that the only deferral was for the interior lot line along the applicant's own property and for adding buffer plantings to the woods along the west property line. Staff said that the land use was the most important issue which needed to be dealt with. Commissioner Putnam asked for clarification of the staff report that a transitional zone might be appropriate. Ron Newman of the Planing Staff reported that two years ago the staff had performed an extensive study of the area, and that a transition zone area might be appropriate along Cooper Orbit Road; that the Planning Staff needed to do further study on the immediate area and possibly update the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification about the sign which was to be posted on the site. Staff responded that the sign had been posted as required and was in place just days prior to the meeting; that dozens of area residents has seen the sign and had called in to ask about the proposal; and, that pieces of the sign were still nailed to the tree. Commissioner Walker asked if a landscape plan had been submitted. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, responded that he had gotten a schematic landscaping plan. Commissioner Walker added that the Commission has, in the past, allowed mini -storage facilities in areas adjoining residential areas because such a use is incidental to the residential uses; that such uses are appropriate in an area such as the current proposal. Mr. walker then asked the applicant if he is willing to do the extra things to make the project a high quality development? The deferrals and waivers are not, Mr. Walker concluded, in keeping with an attitude of making the development a high quality one. Mr. Enderlin responded that he planned to leave the trees at the perimeter and where he could in the interior of the development, and that he would plant trees to meet the buffer and landscaping 0 'May 3, 1994 I_TEM NO.: C_ (Continued)FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & S-1006 requirements. He promised that the development would be a high quality one. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Enderlin if he would amend his application to furnish the needed schematic landscaping plan and the site plan with the required information on it, and amend his application to delete the waivers and deferrals. Mr. Enderlin responded that he would improve the plans and would amend his application. Commissioner Walker reiterated that Mr. Enderlin needed to make his development look as good as any, and asked Mr. Enderlin if he is willing to take the steps necessary to do this. Mr. Enderlin replied that he was willing to do what was needed. Commissioner McDonald counseled Mr. Enderlin that the proposed development needed to encompass the entire 10 acres; that he was not willing to approve the 5 acre site and leave the remaining 5 acres in the present condition; that he was not willing to let him have it both ways. He continued that he was willing to let Mr. Enderlin try something which would improve the site, but that it would have to be a complete project involving the entire tract. Mr. Enderlin explained that he was anticipating on a long-range basis to convert the entire site to the mini -storage use, but that he had wanted to do it in stages. Commissioner McDonald told Mr. Enderlin to phase the development, but to include the whole tract. Commissioner Nicholson recommended to Mr. Enderlin that he seek a deferral to allow him to amend his application and site plan. Commissioner Oleson asked the Planning Staff if they would be able to do the study for the Land Use issue in 60 days. Ron Newman indicated that the 60 days would be sufficient time. Commissioner Walker encouraged Mr. Enderlin to propose a quality project. Commissioner Putnam related that some mini -storage facilities can look good and be an asset the area. He cited the facility on Green Mountain Drive. Ms. Bristow interjected that she and her husband want all requirements imposed so that the facility will look good. 10 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Commissioner Chachere entertained a motion to allow Mr. Enderlin to request a 60 -day deferral until the May 3, 1994 hearing in which Mr. Enderlin is to modify his proposal. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, one no, one absent, no abstentions, and one open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Amos Enderlin, and his engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, were present. Staff outlined the request and presented the revised plan. Mr. McGetrick reported that, in response to the Commission's suggestion at the previous meeting, the application was being amended to provide: 1) for inclusion of the entire site in the PCD as a phased development; and, 2) for an agreement to construct the required Master Street Plan improvements along Cooper Orbit Road. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Enderlin and Mr. McGetrick the revised plans and the items in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he had no questions about any of the comments, and would make the necessary corrections in the plans. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the original PCD request had been amended to include: the entire site in lieu of being limited to the front one-half of the site; construction of the Cooper Orbit Road improvements as required by the Master Street Plan; and installation of the landscaping and buffering as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, outlined the request and the changes since the last Commission meeting. He reported that the application now complies with all ordinance requirements regarding landscaping and the Master Street Plan; that the applicant had withdrawn all requests for waivers or variances. He related that the PCD now included a 2 -lot plat, with development scheduled over 3 phases; the first phase taking place on Lot 1. He indicated that a solid board fence would be constructed along the front of the property, as well as along the side property lines. On the west, there was to be a 90 foot buffer retained, except for the single residence which was previously placed on the property. On the east, there are large open space buffers containing the detention areas. 11 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Commissioner Hall inquired of staff if, in light of the changes in the plan, staff had changed its recommendation. Staff related that the recommendation had not changed, since the recommendation for denial was based on the proposed use not complying with the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Oleson recalled that, at the previous hearing, she had asked that staff review the Land Use Plan in the area, to see if a change in the Plan were justified. Ron Newman, with the planning staff, responded that staff had taken a look at the area, and had ascertained that, since the plan for the area had been developed and adopted in 1991, there had been virtually no changes which would suggest changes in the Plan. He said that neighborhood commercial is the most intense land use in the area, and that type use is at intersections. The only non-residential uses along Cooper Orbit Road, he continued, are the Oasis Renewal Center and Lake Nixon at the southern end of the road. If the transition zone is extended westward along Cooper Orbit Road, Mr. Newman explained, it would inevitably lead to additional non-residential uses in the area. Mr. Jim Albert, who indicated that he lived directly across the street from the proposed mini -storage facility, said that, if Mr. Enderlin was going to do away with the present construction yard use, he would support the change. Staff explained that the proposal was for a phased development, that the construction yard use would be eliminated over a period of time. In light of this explanation, Mr. Albert responded that Mr. Enderlin has made the area a junk yard and has made no effort to keep it clean; therefore, not believing that the construction yard use would ever be eliminated, he said that he was against the zoning change. Commissioner Nicholson addressed Mr. Albert and said that it had been the Commission that had sent Mr. Enderlin "back to the drawing board" to re -design the site to include the entire tract in the PCD so that the construction yard use would be eliminated. Also, as a result of the Commission's reaction to the original submission, Mr. Enderlin has now withdrawn his request for waivers. Commissioner Willis confirmed with staff that the proposed development is outside the City Limits of Little Rock. 12 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Ms. Jane Bristow addressed the Commission. She related that Mr. Enderlin's property is surrounded by residential property, and concluded that Mr. Enderlin's property should stay residential. She explained that she had lived on abutting property between 1981 and 1989, but, since that time, she had lived in a temporary home while she tried to sell the property on Cooper Orbit Road. Mr. Enderlin's construction yard affects the value of her property; that people don't like to look at it, and she has not been able to sell her property. As a result, she is probably going to have to move back to the property. She complained that when she had tried to subdivide her property and sell off portions of her tract, she had been stopped; yet, Mr. Enderlin is allowed to continue to bring junk in and operate his construction yard. Ms. Bristow also suggested that there are already too many mini -storage units in the area, and that there is no need for additional units. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles responded to Ms. Bristow's comment about there being too many mini -storage units, saying that such factors are not legitimate land use considerations, but are business decisions to be based on market factors; that the Commission cannot legitimately make land use decisions on whether or not the Commissions feels that the business decision is a wise one or not. If too many businesses affect traffic or land planning issues, then the Commission can address the matter from that perspective. Ms. Jo Jackson of the Oasis Renewal Center indicted that she had little to add from the last Commission hearing on the issue. He reiterated that the Oasis Renewal Center has tried to maintain a quiet, retreat setting for reflection, and that any commercial rezoning would detract from the aura which has been created. Ms. Mary Waldo introduced herself as the assistant executive director of the Oasis Renewal Center. She related that the Center is opposed to any change in the zoning which would change the character of the area. She said that the Oasis Renewal Center was purposefully established in a residential area, and had relied on the Land Use Plan's designation of the area as residential when the facility was planned. Commissioner Nicholson explained to the objectors that Mr. Enderlin's construction yard use is a legal non -conforming use of the property which was in existence prior to the City's jurisdiction being extended to the area. Commissioner Putnam, responding to those who object to the proposed development, explained that the objectors have a way of getting rid of what they don't like in supporting the change in the zoning; that they have a choice between a mini -storage on the 13 "May 3, 1994 ITEM NO • C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 property or the property possibly staying like it is "until hell freezes over" since it is a non -conforming use. The brick yard, or materials yard, can remain as a non -conforming use; however, if the PCD is approved, Mr. Enderlin will eventually have to cease that operation and use of the property. The mini -storage use, it would seem, is the lesser of two evils, and is a way to get the objectionable use off the property. He pointed out that, on Green Mountain Drive, there are a number of mini -storage facilities, one being directly across from Fox Run, and one does not even see them. Commissioner Willis inquired if the City has any jurisdiction in the area. Deputy City Attorney Giles responded that the City has only zoning jurisdiction in the extraterritorial area. Commissioner Woods confirmed with Mr. Giles that the City cannot enforce clean-up ordinances on Mr. Enderlin's property; but can only enforce the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Putnam observed that if Mr. Enderlin could be convinced to complete the entire project involving both the front and back lots, then the whole site would be cleaned up and the non -conforming situation would be ended. Mr. Putnam then asked staff if there was a stated time -frame for completing all phases. Staff responded that there was no time -frame proposed. Commissioner Putnam observed that the non -conforming use could continue forever. Commissioner McDaniel interjected that he could support the proposal if there were a definite time limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use; if there was a tradeout which would benefit the neighbors. Commissioner Willis, addressing the applicant, asked if Mr. Enderlin would want to amend his application to include a time -limit on the continuation of the non -conforming use. Commissioner McDaniel explained that the Commissioners were not seeking to have Mr. Enderlin commit to building the remaining phases, but only to cleaning up the site and ending the construction yard activity. Chairperson Chachere clarified the Commissioner's position, and addressed Mr. Enderlin, saying that the approval of the mini -storage PCD would be contingent on Mr. Enderlin agreeing to cease the construction yard activity within a certain time period. Commissioner Selz added that the site also must be cleaned up, not just the activity stopped. 14 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: C (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5550-A & 5-1006 Mr. Enderlin, reacting to the Commissioners' comments, stated that he would agree to stop the activity and clean up the site within one year of the beginning of the construction of the first phase of the mini -storage PCD. Chairperson Chachere stated that the one-year time period needed to begin with the approval by the City. Deputy City Attorney Giles added that the one-year time period should being with the date of the approval by the Board of Directors of the PCD ordinance. A motion was then made the approve the PCD request, with the condition that the non -conforming construction yard activity cease and the site be cleaned up of construction materials within one year from the date of approval of the PCD ordinance by the Board of Directors. The motion failed to receive the required number of votes for a positive recommendation with the vote of 5 ayes, 5 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. The item was, therefore, deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. 15 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-5806 NAME: PERKINS SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.5 miles north of W. 36th. St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• ST. CHARLES HEALTH CARE CENTERS MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 610 Towson 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Little Rock, AR 72211 783-5191 223-9900 AREA: 5.0 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Nursing Home Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted plans representing a proposal for development of a nursing home facility, and requesting a PCD in order to accomplish the objective. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for establishment of a PCD in order to develop a nursing home facility on the site. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The terrain is rolling, with the center of the site being about 20 feet lower than the northeast corner and the southwest corner of the property. The existing zoning is R-2, with R-2 zoning being the only zoning in the area. May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5806 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way along and to construct Master Street Plan improvements on Bowman Rd. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution analysis is required. Contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power & Light Co., Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan without comment. The Fire Department requests that the drive through/drop-off lane be a minimum of 18 feet in width. Landscape review reports that a 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen the site from the residential properties to the north, south, and east. The screen can be a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittals to date are deficient: 1) No project narrative has been submitted; therefore, staff cannot complete the review process and cannot present the applicants proposal and request; 2) The landscaping plan has not been furnished for review; 3) The preliminary plat information is incomplete; and, 4) The preliminary Bill of Assurance has not been submitted. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan recommends low density multi -family uses in the area. The Planning staff believes that a nursing home can meet the intent of low density multi -family residential use intended. E. ANALYSIS• Staff is unable to present a complete proposal and request on behalf of the applicant without the project narrative. The narrative establishes the parameters within which the review is performed and the approval is considered. Without the narrative, the character of the proposed development cannot be reviewed and the requirements for the PCD cannot 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • D (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5806 be set. Long-term enforcement of requirements of the PCD would not be possible, since no description of the character of the proposed development exist. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the request until the required submittals are presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) A representative of the applicant and Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the plan and outlined the request. The Committee reviewed with Mr. McGetrick the comments cited in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would make the needed changes. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated March 21, 1994, seeking a deferral of the hearing of the request to the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The request was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, no noes, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. Staff reported that the Commission Bylaws require the applicant to request a deferral at least five (5) days prior to the Hearing, and that a waiver of the Bylaws requirement needed to be approved. The waiver passed with the vote of 10 ayes, no nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Cole, a real estate agent. The project engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, was present. Mr. McGetrick reported that the applicant was seeking approval of a PCD in order to construct a nursing home facility. Proposed is a 2 -phase development: the first phase would be the construction of a 40,588 square foot building containing 70 beds; the second phase would add 6,750 square feet and an additional 38 beds. The building would be one story. Sixty-seven parking spaces are proposed, and, according to Mr. McGetrick, this is more than adequate parking for this type facility. Building coverage is 19% of the site for the first phase, increasing to 22% with the addition of phase 2 construction. The required right-of-way 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO • Z-5806 along the Bowman Road frontage will be dedicated, and one-half the width of Bowman Road will be improved to Master Street Plan requirements. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will be observed. The requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance will be met. Construction of the first phase is expected to being upon approval of the PCD; the second phase will follow as demand warrants. The committee reviewed with representatives of the applicant the comments in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick indicated that there would be no problem complying with the requirements. Staff indicated a hesitancy to support the design, since the plan provides for the dumpster service and can wash areas along the east property line, while a new residential subdivision has recently been approved for the land directly to the east of and abutting the proposed nursing home. Mr. McGetrick responded that these service areas would be moved to the north side of the building. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the item, and reported that there were no issues to be resolved. The applicant had agreed to relocate the dumpster and can wash area to the north side of the building, and two objectors at previous hearing have submitted written letters indicating that they have no objection to the development. Winrock, staff related, also indicated that, even though they are in the process of developing a new residential subdivision which will abut the east boundary of the proposed nursing home development, they have no objection to the PCD. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reviewed the request with the Commission and reiterated staff comments regarding the relocation of the dumpster and can wash. He also indicated that the hours for service of the dumpster and for can wash will be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. He related that Public Works has agreed to review the need for a right-in/right-out drive at the north end of the property depending on the sight distance which will be achieved when the road is widened and the right-of-way is cleared. Commissioner Oleson asked for verification that the issues discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting had been addressed regarding the relocation of the dumpster, can wash, hours of service, and landscaping. 4 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Continued) FILE NO.: z-5806 Mr. McGetrick responded that there had been an agreement on the developer's part make the changes and stipulations required. Bob Brown, of the Neighborhoods and Planning staff, responded to Commissioner Oleson's inquiry regarding the landscaping issue. He reported that the revised plan meets all landscaping and buffer requirements. He said, though, that the dumpster must be enclosed on at least 3 sides with an 8 foot high fence. Commissioner Oleson asked for clarification on the status of the objectors who had been present at the previous meeting. Staff related that these objectors had withdrawn their objection by letters to staff. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the PCD, and the item passed with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z -5524-B NAME: LOCATION• ZuZu's - Conditional Use Permit 401 South Bowman Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Tierney -Hale Partnership by Mark Buerkle of Rector Phillips Morse PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 2,400 square foot restaurant (eating place without drive-in service) on this C-1 zoned, .6± acre site. An area of outdoor dining is proposed in a patio area to be located in front of the building. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Bowman Road, four blocks south of West Markham Street. 2. Comt)atibility with Neighborhood This property is located in a narrow strip of land on the east side of Bowman Road which serves as a buffer between the intense commercial development on the west side of Bowman Road and the single family residential neighborhood located to the east. At the time this property was rezoned from 0-3 to C-1 in 1993, it was envisioned to be used for a small scale, low intensity commercial use which would provide a transition to single family from the larger more car -oriented commercial area. A highly intensive commercial use, such as the proposed restaurant, does not comply with the transition concept envisioned for this site and staff feels that the proposed use would have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking A 2,400 square foot restaurant requires 24 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-way drive circling around the building with 33 on-site parking May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B spaces, two of which are designated as handicapped accessible. A single entry point onto Bowman Road is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 6 foot high opaque screen must be constructed on the property line where adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The dumpster must be enclosed on three sides with an 8 foot high opaque wall or fence. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Construct handicapped ramps. Dedicate additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Bowman Road. 6. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along the north property line. The area of the former Birchwood Drive right-of-way, located adjacent to the south of this site, was retained as a utility easement. This must be shown on the site plan. The existing 8 inch water main must be indicated in this easement. A sewer main extension is required with easements. 7. Analysis The request before the Planning Commission is a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 2,400 square foot restaurant, with outdoor dining, on this C-1 zoned property. The C-1 neighborhood commercial district is designed to accommodate limited retail developments within or adjacent to neighborhood areas for the purpose of supplying daily household needs of the residents for food, drugs and personal services. Commercial uses within this district should not depend on market areas larger than the neighborhood served. Staff feels that the proposed restaurant is so designed and located as to serve the much broader commercial needs of the community and will have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being incompatible with and having an adverse effect on the adjacent single family residential neighborhood. Fa May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 20, 1994) Mark Buerkle and Maury Mitchell were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and outlined the City Engineer, Utility, and Landscape/Buffer Comments noted above. It was pointed out that this site plan is contingent upon the Board of Directors approving the abandonment of Birchwood Drive, located south of this site. The applicant was told to provide details on parking lot lighting, hours of business, delivery hours and waste pickup hours. In response to a question from a commissioner, Mark Buerkle stated that there would be no other activity in the outdoor dining area besides dining. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the City Engineer Comment to dedicate an additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Bowman Road. It was pointed out that the Master Street Plan requires a minimum of 45 feet from centerline and that there is currently a right-of-way of 40 feet from centerline. This portion of Bowman Road is classified as a minor arterial street on the Master Street Plan. The applicant was advised to have a revised site plan and responses to the various issues raised back to staff within a week. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 8, 1994) Mark Buerkle, Maury Mitchell and Andrew Hicks were present representing the application. There were several objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and stated that one letter of opposition had been received. Mark Buerkle then addressed the Commission. Mr. Buerkle gave a brief description of the operation and asked that the Commission approve the application. Ken Davis, of 417 Springwood Drive, then addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Davis stated that the proposed restaurant was too intense of a use for the property. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B Patty Roberts, of 11805 Birchwood Drive, next addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. Mrs. Roberts stated that the odor, the noise and pests associated with the restaurant would have a negative impact on the adjacent property owners. Doyle Daniel, of 412 Springwood Drive, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed restaurant. Mr. Daniel stated that the outdoor seating, lights and noise associated with the business would have a negative impact on the adjacent residential properties. Mr. Daniel stated that the property is zoned C-1 and is to be used as neighborhood commercial. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle to give details on the restaurant's operation. Mr. Buerkle responded that the restaurant was a family-oriented business. He further stated that the restaurant was nonsmoking and nonalcoholic and had no drive-thru. Mr. Buerkle continued by giving greater detail on the proposed lighting and landscaping associated with the project. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Buerkle if the dumpster could be relocated from the rear portion of the property. Andrew Hicks responded that the dumpster is located to the rear of the property as the ordinance requires. Mr. Hicks stated that the dumpster would be enclosed and pointed out that there is an additional opaque screen along the east side of the property, on top of the slope, which would provide maximum screening. Commissioner Walker asked if a masonry wall could be put in place of the opaque fence along the east side. Mr. Hicks responded that a masonry wall could be used in that location. He stated that the applicant will work with staff and neighborhood residents to design the most effective screening. Additionally, Mr. Hicks stated that the lighting on the property would be low-level, 12 feet high, and would have minimal impact on adjacent properties. Ken Davis again addressed the Commission and stated that the neighborhood is still opposed to this use. Mr. Davis stated that the neighborhood residents were not here to discuss various aspects of the proposal. Maury Mitchell then addressed the Commission in favor of the application. 4 `May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, then spoke to the Commission. He stated that this property should be used as an office use. Mr. Lawson stated that the property was zoned C-1 for a comic bookstore but that proposal did not develop. Mr. Lawson stated that this narrow strip on the east side of Bowman Road should be used by low intensity uses, not intense C-3 type uses. Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, then addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed restaurant. She stated that she had concerns about the restaurant's impact on the traffic on Bowman Road. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, responded to Ms. Bell's concern. He stated that Bowman Road is, at this point, a five lane arterial with left turn lanes. Mr. Henry stated that traffic should not be a problem. (Note to file: prior to the commission meeting, Mr. Henry informed the Planning Staff that all improvements were in place on Bowman Road and that no further right-of-way dedication was required in association with this application.) Mark Buerkle then closed his presentation to the Commission by stating that the proposed restaurant is a family-oriented restaurant and will be compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Willis then made a motion to vote on the application. The vote was 3 ayes, 5 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. The item was automatically deferred to the March 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that there was no new information to report. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Mark Buerkle, was present. There was one objector present. Mr. Buerkle addressed the Commission and asked that the item be deferred to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that an April 18, 1994 meeting had been arranged with the residents of the Birchwood Subdivision in hopes of resolving some outstanding neighborhood concerns. 5 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5524-B The Commission asked Mr. Doyle Daniel, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, if he was agreeable to the deferral. Mr. Daniels stated that the neighborhood was still opposed to the restaurant but was agreeable to the deferral to allow the meeting on April 18. The item was then placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (Walker). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mark Buerkle was present representing the application. He reported that a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for April 18, 1994. Staff informed the Committee that there was no new information to report. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Mark Buerkle, was present. There were two objectors present. Mr. Buerkle addressed the Commission and asked that the application be withdrawn. A motion was made to waive the bylaws and place Consent Agenda for withdrawal. As part of the the item was approved for withdrawal. The vote 0 noes and 1 absent. 0 the item on the Consent Agenda, was 10 ayes, May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-5797 NAME• LOCATION• Byrd Day Care Center - Conditional Use Permit 3205 Zion Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Brenda J. Byrd PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the conversion of this R-3 zoned, single family residential structure into a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Zion Street, between West 32nd and West 33rd Streets; in the John Barrow neighborhood. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed day care center is located in the middle of an exclusively single family neighborhood. All surrounding properties are zoned R-3 and are occupied by small single family homes. Staff questions the appropriateness of this proposed commercial use being placed in the heart of a stable, single family residential neighborhood. The proposed day care center would be better located on John Barrow Road or West 36th Street, the minor arterial streets located four blocks west and south of this site respectively. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant proposes a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers with two employees. The ordinance requirement is one on-site parking space per employee plus on-site loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one for each ten children. The site plan as submitted shows only one on-site parking space. The applicant states that she will be transporting the children to and from the day care center and the additional spaces are not needed. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5797 4. Screening and Buffers The applicant proposes to convert the rear yard of the site into a playground. This area must be enclosed by a 6 foot high opaque fence to screen the playground activity from the adjacent single family homes. 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate additional 5 feet of right-of-way on Zion Street. Provide parking for drop-off and employees. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The request before the Commission is a conditional use permit to convert this R-3 zoned, single family residential structure into a day care center with a maximum enrollment of 15 infants and toddlers. This property is located in the heart of an older, stable, single family residential neighborhood. The proposed day care center requires a total of four on-site parking spaces for employees and drop-off/pickup of children. The site currently has one on-site parking space and is not designed to easily allow the construction of additional spaces. This is not an application for a day care family home but rather for a day care center to be located within this residential neighborhood. Due to the intensity of the proposed use and the inability of the site to accommodate the required on-site parking, staff is not supportive of this request. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of this application as being incompatible with the neighborhood and unable to comply with ordinance requirements for on-site parking and drop-off/pickup spaces. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) The applicant, Brenda Byrd, was present. Staff presented the item and pointed out several items of concern. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5797 Staff informed the Committee of the parking requirement and the lack of parking associated with this application. Ms. Byrd stated that she had a van and would pick up and deliver the children each day. Ms. Byrd was advised of staff's recommendation concerning the playground screening and the City Engineer comments regarding right-of-way dedication. Staff informed Ms. Byrd that additional details are needed on any proposed signage as well as the days and hours of operation. The Committee instructed Ms. Byrd to provide staff with the needed information. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) The applicant, Brenda Byrd, was present. There were no objectors present although three letters of opposition had been received. Due to the extreme length of the meeting, the applicant had left to go to work. Prior to leaving Ms. Byrd had asked staff to relay her request to have her application deferred. Dana Carney, of the Planning staff, informed the Commission of Ms. Byrd's request and the Commission voted to defer her application to the May 3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that the applicant was considering amending her application to a "day care family home." Staff informed the Committee that no formal request to amend the application had been received. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Brenda Byrd, was present. There were no objectors present. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and informed the Commission that Ms. Byrd desired to amend her application to a special use permit for a day care family home. Ms. Byrd addressed the Commission and confirmed her wish to amend the application. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: F (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5797 At Commissioner Oleson's request, Mr. Carney read the ordinance regulation governing a day care family home. Those regulations are as follow: a. This use may be located only in a single family home, occupied by the caregiver. b. Must be operated within licensing procedure established by the State of Arkansas. C. The use is limited to ten children including the caregivers. d. The minimum to qualify for special use permit is six children from households other than the caregivers. e. This use must obtain a special use permit in all districts where day care centers are not allowed by right. A motion was made to approve the amended application for a special use permit to allow a day care family home. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z -5106 - NAME: THE WASHING WELL -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Highway 10, approximately 0.4 miles west of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: ASCOMB ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., ATTORNEY 1619 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 378-7720 AREA: 0.3 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to utilize an existing commercial building at the proposed location as a laundromat. The 0.3 acre site contains a 2800 square foot building, and the site is not currently being utilized. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and pave a parking area at the front of the building to provide 8 parking spaces. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD in order for the applicant to utilize an existing commercial building situated on a lot which is currently zoned R-2 for a laundromat. The applicant proposes to remodel the building and to provide paved parking at the front of the building to accommodate 8 vehicles. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing building is a vacant, deteriorated building located on a lot in the Pankey community. There are, as indicated on the survey, encroachments by neighboring buildings on the lots which the applicant plans to develop. 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning exclusively on all other properties in the area. There is an illegal non -conforming use in the residential structure immediately to the west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Ordinance will require dedication of additional right-of-way for Highway 10 will be required, as will construction of a sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage of the site. Water Works and Wastewater have no objections to the proposal. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot wide easement at the perimeter of the lot. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review indicates that an opaque 6 foot high screen is required to screen the proposed use from the residential property to the south, east, and west. This screen can be a "good neighbor" wood fence or be dense evergreen plantings. The landscape strip width west of the proposed parking lot must be increased to 6 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The submittal is seriously deficient: there was no project narrative submitted; the survey is inadequate; no landscape plan was submitted; no Bill of Assurance was furnished; etc. There has been no contact with the applicant since January when the file was "dropped off", with no personal meeting, and a telephone call a few weeks later to confirm that the file had been received. There has been no confirmation that the required notification, either by the placing of the sign or the mailing of certified letters, has taken place. At a previous Commission hearing, when an identical problem in the Pankey area surfaced regarding encroachments across property lines, it was determined that such encroachments are civil matters between property owners, and are not within the scope of concern of the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff reports that the site is in the River Mountain Planning District. The Plan recommends single family uses for the Pankey area. There have been no changes to warrant an amendment to the plan to allow for commercial land uses in Pankey. 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A E. ANALYSIS• The proposed land use, according to the Land Use Plan, is inappropriate to the area. The submittal is deficient. There has been no verification that the required notification has been accomplished. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed with the Committee the comments made in the discussion outline and presented the request. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the review of the deficiencies noted and for action on the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the item, and related that the notice requirements had been met by the applicant. Mr. Willard Proctor, an attorney representing the applicant, outlined the request, and explained that the current proposal is an identical one to a request made to the Commission approximately 2 years earlier. At that time, he said, the Commission had recommended approval of the request to the Board of Directors, but the Board of Directors had denied the rezoning request. Mr. Proctor related that during the 2 -year interim, he and the applicant's representative, Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff, had been working with the neighborhood to gain the neighborhood's approval of their proposal, and that he felt there is now a consensus of the neighborhood to allow the commercial use of the applicant's property for the Washing well laundromat. Mr. Proctor continued, saying that fairly recently, the City had allowed a non-residential use of the property in the abutting property to the west: a neighborhood alert center. He complained that the applicant had been waiting and waiting for approval of the non-residential use of their property, but that others had come in and were getting approval for non-residential uses which are not that dissimilar to the type uses the applicant had been pursuing. 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5106-A Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant's building was designed and used as a commercial building from the beginning; that it was never a residential structure; that it had originally been a nightclub until it was heavily damaged by a fire; that it was sitting vacant and was deteriorating, and was an eyesore to the neighborhood; that the building was a non -conforming building which had lost its legal non -conforming status due to it being vacant after the fire; that the applicant had put a new roof on the building a few years back in order to keep the building from deteriorating further; but, that the applicant wished to continue the repairs in order to enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood and put the building to a commercial use. The required right-of-way will be dedicated, Mr. Proctor said, and the AP&L easement will be granted. The Landscape Ordinance requirements will be complied with. Mr. Proctor went on to say that the real issue is apparently the land use issue; that this issue has been the "sticky" point all along. He explained that there has always been one person who has said that she spoke "on behalf of the neighborhood" who has said that the neighborhood does not want the proposed use for the building. On the contrary, he said, when the applicant talks to people in the neighborhood, the applicant is told by the neighbors that they are in favor of the proposal; that, in fact, many say they would use the laundromat if it were allowed. There is not, he related, a laundromat anywhere in the neighborhood. Since the individual who had spoken in opposition to the non- residential use of the property is the same person who had gained approval of the neighborhood alert center next door, Mr. Proctor said that he could not see how she could still be in opposition to the applicant's proposed non-residential use of their property. Chairperson Chachere inquired of Mr. Proctor if the applicant is aware of the Donaghey Study for land uses in the Pankey area which is currently on-going, and, if so, if the proposed use complies with the Study's results? Mr. Proctor responded that the applicant is aware of the Study, and that according to the Study, the applicant's property is supposed to be a commercial use. Chairperson Chachere asked if the applicant had discussed the proposed use with the neighborhood association? Mr. Proctor explained that Mr. Bickerstaff had been in communication with various individual in the neighborhood. Mr. Tim Polk, Assistant Director, Neighborhoods and Planning, interjected that the Study calls for the area in the immediate 4 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A vicinity of the applicant's property to remain residential; that those involved in the preparation of the "Pankey Community Plan" have indicated that commercial uses should be located on the north side of Highway 10, and located further east towards the Kroger Center. Mr. Polk also explained that the abutting use which Mr. Proctor had cited as a "neighborhood alert center" is not a City -operated alert center, but a support center operated for the neighborhood, and that the approval of its use had not entailed a rezoning, but a conditional use permit. The property had remained zoned R-2. Mr. Proctor reiterated that the existing structure is an eyesore, but that, because it is a commercial structure, nothing can be done with it without rezoning. The applicant has a substantial investment in the structure and needs to be allowed to use it. Mr. Bickerstaff pointed out that there are several similar non- conforming uses on the south side of Highway 10, but, in the applicant's case, the structure had lost its non -conforming status due to extensive fire damage and its subsequent vacancy. Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to what role Mr. Bickerstaff had in the proposal. Mr. Bickerstaff responded that the owner is ASCOMB Enterprises, Inc., and that he is related to one of the principles. Commissioner Willis asked for clarification of the proposed signage. Mr. Proctor explained that the applicant would comply with the regulations and would install a monument -type sign. Commissioner Nicholson related that the Pankey community has a long history, and that the City had made a commitment to keep the Pankey community residential; that until she heard from the community that the community is ready for a change, she would not support the rezoning. Mrs. Nicholson indicated to the applicant that perhaps a deferral of the request should be sought until the Donaghey Study is completed. Mr. Proctor indicated that, indeed, a deferral would be appropriate, and that he did request a deferral. Commissioner Walker warned that the applicant's property is only 150 feet deep; that by denying such applicants use of their property, the City is holding citizens hostage of a Plan for planning purposes. If the City Plan calls for the applicant's land to be a buffer to the residential property to the south, then the City needs to acquire the property. If the City is not 5 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5106-A allowing the property to be used by the applicant, then the City needs to start paying rent on the property, he said. Mr. Walker continued, saying that all other non -conforming uses in Pankey have been recognized by the Donaghey Study; that the applicant's property is the only one which is not being recognized due to its loss of its non -conforming status. The Study needs to address the situation regarding the applicant's property, since the building is a commercial structure. Mr. Polk explained that the "plan" is the Pankey Community Plan, and that it is being formalized and should be completed in a matter of weeks. Chairperson Chachere asked if the Commission were ready to vote on a motion to defer the hearing until the next Subdivision agenda. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion carried with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant's attorney, Mr. Willard Proctor, had submitted a letter asking that the item be deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. Staff recalled that the deferral granted by the Commission at the March 22 meeting to the May 3 meeting had been based on an assumption that the Pankey Community Plan would be completed by May 3, and that the Plan would designate the commercial uses which the Pankey community wished to retain. The applicant had related at the March 22 meeting, staff recalled, that they anticipated the applicant's site to be shown on the Plan as a commercial site, and this would lend support to their contention that the site should be zoned for commercial use. The completion of the Plan has been delayed, staff explained, but is forthcoming, and a deferral until May 17 should give the needed time without delaying the hearing on the request. The deferral until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 2 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -61-E NAME: SCOTT HAMILTON ADDITION NO. 2, LOT 3 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of the I-30 access road, approximately 400 feet west of Scott Hamilton, and south to 81st. Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Motel 6, Frank Riggins Operating Limited Partnership THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 500 P. O. Box 3837 Dallas, TX 75240 Little Rock, AR 72203 (214) 386-6161 375-5331 AREA: 3.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Motel (Existing) The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the subdivision which included the subject lot in the Commission meeting of September 11, 1984. A final plat was submitted for approval on July 19, 1985, and was subsequently approved. The preliminary and final plats included the dedication of the right- of-way and acceptance of the street improvements for W. 81st. Street. The final plat, however, was never filed for record at the Circuit Clerks office, and, consequently, the approval was void, and W. 81st. Street has remained a private street. The owner now wishes to finalize the action which was interrupted in 1985, and has submitted the identical plat of the subject lot and the W. 81st. Street right-of-way. Approval of the preliminary plat is again sought. A. PROPOSAWREOUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a revived preliminary plat for Lot 3 and the W. 81st. Street right-of-way for Scott Hamilton Addition No. 2. Due to the failure of the owner at the time of the original approval of the final plat to file the plat for record, the final plat was voided and the approval of the preliminary plat has lapsed. The applicant seeks approval for a second time for 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -61-E the preliminary plat in order to file a final plat for Lot 3 and gain acceptance by the City for the maintenance for W. 81st. Street. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 3 is currently occupied by the I-30 Motel 6; W. 81st. Street is a private street connecting Scott Hamilton Dr. on the east and the Arkansas Electric Co -Op Corporation site on the west, and runs along the south boundary of the Motel 6 and Red Roof Inn lots. In 1985, W. 81st. Street was built to City standards and was accepted by the City for maintenance. Due to the failure of the developer to file the final plat with the Circuit Clerk, the approval of the final plat and of the City for maintenance of the street was voided. The site is zoned C-3. The tract to the east is zoned C-3. Immediately to the west, and across W. 81st. Street to the south is I-2 zoned land. To the north is I-30, with I-2 zoned land beyond. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports no comments. The developer has been in contact with engineering to determine the work which will be required to be completed and maintenance bond required to be submitted for acceptance of the street. Water Works reports that several years ago they had been told that W. 81st. Street was a public right-of-way, and Water Works has an 8 inch water main in the assumed right- of-way. ight- of-way. Wastewater reports that there is existing sewer service in to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require an easement along the north right-of-way line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, and comments that they have a 2 inch plastic line that extends 633 feet west of Scott Hamilton to serve the Red Roof Inn and Arkansas Electric Co -Op Corporation. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The preliminary plat is deficient in the following ways: the source of title needs to be shown on the plat; the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy needs to O May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • S -61-E include the statement that the survey "has been duly filed for record in the offices of the State Surveyor and the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk...;" and, the plat needs to state that the right-of-way for W. 81st. Street is being dedicated. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in the plan which have been noted are minimal and can be easily corrected. The proposed plat is submitted to correct an omission from 1984-85 in not filing for record the final plat at that time, and is to initiate the steps necessary to place into the record what has already taken place in "real life". The Motel 6 tract exists and the motel sits on the tract. The street exists, and the City is willing to accept the dedication and the street for maintenance. There are no issues, other than the applicant meeting the engineering requirements to make certain repairs to the street and the furnishing of the maintenance bond. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Frank Riggins, representing the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Mr. Riggins presented the request to the Committee, and the Committee reviewed with him the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. Mr. Riggins assured the Committee that the items would be taken care of. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there are only minor deficiencies to be resolved, and that there was a recommendation for approval subject to: the source of title being shown on the plat; the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy being amended to state that the survey "has been filed for record in the offices of the State Surveyor and the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk...'; and, that the plat is to state that the right-of-way for W. 81st. Street is dedicated. The approval was included in the Consent Agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1018 NAME: FOUR OAKS LIVING CENTER ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Road, approximately 300 feet south of Tanya Drive, across from Parkview High School DEVELOPER• Joe Gribble 4115 W. 16th. Street Little Rock, AR 72204 225-2890 AREA• 38.68 ACRES ZONING: MF -12 & R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 ENGINEER• Joe White WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Apartments and Living Center VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver of improvements in unimproved street right-of-way along the south property line STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat on a 38.68 acre tract in order to create a site for the immanent construction of the Four Oaks Living Center facility. One 4.76 acre lot for the Living Center facility is proposed at this time, with the remainder of the tract being designated as "Tract All. Tract A is proposed to be subdivided at a later date when planning for the construction of additional buildings is completed. There is an existing 20 foot wide dedicated but unimproved right-of-way along the south boundary of the tract which is a part of the abutting subdivision plat. No dedication of additional right-of-way or improvements to the existing right-of-way are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant seeks Planning Commission approval of a preliminary plat for the establishment of a 1 -lot and 1 tract subdivision on a 38.68 acre site. The designated lot is to contain 4.67 acres, and is to be the site of the Four Oaks Living Center. The remainder of the 38.68 acre tract is to designated for future development, and is to be subdivided at a later date. The applicant seeks a waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance and Master Street Plan regulations which will require dedication of additional May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1018 right-of-way and street improvements to the existing right- of-way lying along the south boundary of the subdivision. Approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the waiver. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and if heavily wooded. There is as much as a 73 foot differential in topography across the site, with deep ravines running west and northwest from the southeast corner of the tract. There are developed residential subdivision on the south, west, and north boundaries of the proposed development. The existing zoning of the site is MF -12. The existing zoning to the north is R-4; to the west is R-2; and to the south is R-3 and MF -24. Across John Barrow Rd. is R-2 land, with Parkview High School occupying approximately 2/3 of the length of the frontage across the street. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that additional right-of-way along John Barrow Rd. will be required to meet Master Street Plan requirements. The Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension with easements will be required. A Capacity Contribution Analysis will be required. Contact Wastewater for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements along the John Barrow Rd. frontage and around the perimeter of Lot 1. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements along the north, south, and west property lines. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The preliminary plat is deficient in the following ways: the source of title is to be provided; a metes and bounds legal description is to be provided; provide information on the source of water supply and the means of wastewater May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1018 disposal anticipated; the names of owners of all land contiguous to the tract are to be shown on the plat; the zoning classifications within the plat and of the abutting tracts are to be shown; and, the certifications are to be executed. A preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted for review. When the John Barrow's Addition lots to the south of the subject property were platted, a 20 foot wide portion of a street right-of-way was shown. This unimproved right-of-way abuts the subject tract along its entire south boundary. Three streets and 4 alleys in the John Barrow's Addition plat "T" into this unimproved right-of-way. The applicant has requested a waiver from any requirement to provide the matching right-of-way and to build a street in that right- of-way. ight- of-way. E. ANALYSIS• Only minor deficiencies exist in the submittal. With the agreement by the applicant to dedicate the required right- of-way along the John Barrow Rd. boundary of the subdivision, there are no substantive issues to be resolved. There will be no requirement to dedicate right-of-way and to make street improvements along the south boundary of the proposed subdivision until a preliminary plat for the designated Tract "A" is presented for approval and subsequent final platting of the abutting area is undertaken. The applicant may, during the interim, want to pursue abandonment of that right-of-way. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Joe White, representing White-Daters & Associates, the engineer on the project, was present. Staff presented the item to the Committee, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. White the deficiencies and questions raised in the discussion outline. Mr. White assured staff and the Committee that the deficiencies would be corrected. The Committee referred the item to the Commission for the public hearing. 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1018 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved; that the applicant had made all required changes in the drawings. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z -2058-B NAME: MARCIE HEIEN -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of "T" Street and Watt Street DEVELOPER: Marcie Heien 1020-A S. Taylor St. Little Rock, AR 72204 663-7676 AREA: 0.344 ACRES ZONING• 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Office and Residence The applicant proposes the construction of a building for the combined use as an office -showroom and residence. The applicant has a solar design and equipment installation business, and proposes that the building incorporate "the latest solar technologies" to serve as a working model. The architectural style of the building is to be residential in character. From the north, the building would appear as a one-story home. From the south, three stories would be visible. This is due to both the downward slope in the terrain from north to south across the site, and to the design of the building itself. At ground level from the north, the entrance to both the home and the office showroom, as well as the residential garage, would be located. Above this main level, there is deigned a 1/2 floor bedroom level which opens to the south. Below the main level, which is below the grade of north elevation, is the proposed storage area for solar equipment. No provision for outside storage is requested, and, in fact, is specifically excluded. The rear/south yard area is proposed as the rear yard of the residential use. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: The applicant requests review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors for the establishment of a POD for a combined use of an office -showroom for a solar consulting and installation business and a residence for the applicant. The building is to utilize "residential building components" to achieve a residential character in the May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2058-B design, and is to incorporate the "latest solar technologies" in the design and is to "serve as a working model." Because of the drop in the terrain from north to south across the site, from the north, the main level of the building would be at ground level, and would contain the entrance to the residence and to the office -showroom. The level above this main level would be the residential bedroom floor of the building, and would be concealed under the main level roof, so the building would appear as a one-story building from the north. The floor below the main level would be constructed as a basement level, and would be below ground level when viewed from the north. This would be the equipment storage area for the business. All three levels would be open to the outside from the southern exposure, but the rear yard would be used as the back yard for the residence only. No outside storage of equipment is proposed. No variances or waivers are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently vacant, with the remnants of the foundation of a former building being on the site. The terrain drops almost one story level at an embankment located about mid -way north to south in the site. The existing zoning is 0-3. To the north across "T" Street is the McDonald's restaurant in a C-3 zoning district. Catercorner to the northwest and to the east is additional C-3 area. To the west is a PCD for Miss Selma's School. To the south is a residence in an R-2 area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the applicant will be required to construct curb, gutter, and a sidewalk along the Watt St. frontage, or the applicant can place an in -lieu contribution with the City for improvements to be made as part of the Watt St. improvement project which is planned. Water Works reports no objection to the project. Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that no adverse effect is anticipated. An 8 inch water main is located in the alley. Wastewater must be contacted for details prior to construction. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2058-B Landscape review reports that the schematic plan which was submitted complies with the landscaping and buffer requirements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The proposed POD is to be located on an existing platted lot. There are no subdivision issues to be resolved. The design keeps the office -showroom exposure to the north, facing the McDonald's restaurant and the 1-1-3 area. The south face of the building is residential in character and the rear (south) yard is the back yard of residential use. The application provides for no convertibility to other uses. The only use of the property, without amending the POD, will be for the office -showroom and storage for the energy consulting, installation, and sales business, plus the residential use. If convertibility to other types of office uses is desired, the applicant needs to make that request. The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the West Little Rock District. The adopted plan recommends office of this site. There is, therefore, no land issue to be resolved in this application. E. ANALYSIS• The combined office -showroom and residential uses of the site form a buffer between the commercial uses along Cantrell Rd. and the residential uses to the south. The building design, itself, accomplishes the transition from commercial to residential within the building, with the south face of the building being the exposure of the residential use of the building; the north face being the exposure of the office -showroom use. With no outside storage of equipment or materials, and the storage for equipment and materials being accessed by way of garage doors off Watt St., there should be no adverse effect on the residential use to the south. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the establishment of the POD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the proposal and outlined the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2058-B Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. STAFF UPDATE: After the Subdivision Committee meeting, staff contacted the applicant and FAXED a copy of the comments to the applicant's representative. The applicant's representative has been instrumental in the statewide event featuring the solar powered cars and the earth day activities, and, in his own words, "forgot" about the Committee meeting. He expressed his apologies for the oversight. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there were no outstanding issues, and that no objectors had contacted staff during the review time period. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z -2904-C NAME: ANDOVER SQUARE. PHASE V - AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Beyond the south end of Andover Court, lying along the east property line of the Andover Square Townhomes development DEVELOPER: John S. Bailey Bailey Corporation 1400 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 663-3335 AREA: 1.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING• PRD PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ENGINEER• Joe White WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 6 FT. NEW STREET: 360 (private) PROPOSED USES: Residential The applicant proposes to develop the lone remaining undeveloped tract in the existing Andover Square PRD. Proposed is the construction of 6 patio homes with attached garages. The governing PRD was established in 1980 and encompasses the existing tract. In 1988, the applicant proposed an amended PRD to extract from the Andover Square Property Owners' Association the site under consideration in the pending application, and allow the buyers of each of the 6 patio homes to own homes independent of the Association. The proposal was not well received by the Association at that time, and, consequently, the applicant has proposed in this application for the patio homes to be a part of the Property Owners' Association. The applicant also states that the architectural style of the patio homes will blend with the character of the existing townhomes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for the establishment of an amended PRD in order for the applicant to construct 6 detached patio homes within the boundary of the Andover Square PRD. The original PRD was approved in 1980 and encompassed the site where the patio homes are to be built. This site is the May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2904-C last remaining sites within the PRD. The applicant proposes to amend the PRD to permit the construction of the patio homes, and for buyers of these homes to have membership in the townhome property owners' association. The proposed development is to feature attached garages in lieu of having no garages as is characterized by the townhomes development, but indicates that the architectural style of the new homes will blend with the existing styles. No variances from the regulations is proposed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and relatively level. The existing zoning of the site is PRD. There is a 50 foot wide OS strip along the eastern boundary of the site, with MF -6 and R-2 zoned land to the east beyond the OS strip. To the south is R-2 zoned area. To the west and north is PRD area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the Stormwater Detention and the Excavation Ordinances will be applicable in the development of the site. Water Works reports that a water main extension will be required. Wastewater reports that sewer is available on the property. A sewer main extension, however, may be required to serve all units. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The plans which have been submitted are deficient in the following ways: a schematic landscaping and buffering plan has not been furnished; no metes and bounds legal description was provided; no development schedule was included; the source of title was not shown; the owner affidavit needs to be executed; the anticipated source of water supply and means of wastewater disposal was not addressed; the zoning classifications of the abutting properties was not shown; and, the surveying and engineering certifications are not executed. A preliminary Bill of Assurance was not provided. 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2904-C A 50 foot wide OS zoned strip lies along the east property line of the proposed development. This OS strip must be protected from intrusion of construction activity, and a fence along this strip will be required to be provided during construction. The buildings need to be set away from the edge of the OS strip. The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the West Little Rock District, and the adopted plan recommends multifamily for the site. There is no land use issue. E. ANALYSIS• The proposal is for residential development within a Planned Residential Development. The proposal, therefore, is in keeping with the planned land use for the site. The developer has apparently dealt with the objections of the Andover Square Property Owners' Association by providing that the new development will retain membership in the Association. Other than the potential concerns by the Association, the only concerns are those noted above in the staff comments; the deficiencies of the submittal need to be remedied. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PRD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Mr. John Bailey, and Mr. Joe White, representing White-Daters & Associates, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the request. Mr. Bailey and Mr. White reviewed with the Committee the features of the proposal. The Committee reviewed with Mr. White the items noted in the discussion outline, and Mr. White assured the Committee that the deficiencies would be corrected. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the item, and called on Mr. John Bailey, the developer, to review the proposal with the Commission. Mr. Bailey presented the proposal, and indicated that the Andover Square PRD was originally approved in 1980 as an overall scheme which included the area of the current proposal. This area is 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2904-C the final undeveloped portion of the area, he said. He related that he and others in the team which is developing the project had met with the property owners and the association on several occasions over the months, and that the first meeting had been held in mid-February. He said that the developers are trying to accommodate the property owners and the Board of Directors of the property owners association, and will continue to meet with the various persons and entities to work out both the fee structure for dues for the new patio homes and for assuring compatibility of the new homes with the architecture of the existing townhomes. Commissioner Nicholson, referring to a letter which had been circulated to Commissioners, indicated that the letter suggested that there had not been proper notification of property owners. Staff reported that the developer had gotten the posted notice out 2 days late; 28 days prior to the meeting date in stead of the required 30 days. Staff pointed out that this information had been provided to the Commission in the Consent Agenda, and that a wavier of the bylaws would be needed. Commissioner Nicholson, again referring to the letter which had been circulated, reported that the letter indicated that the property owners' association had not granted Bailey Corporation permission to gain access to the proposed building site from the private drives within Andover Square. Mr. Bailey responded that the proposed building site is part of the master PRD; that the drives are on common area and are covered by an access easement which gives all property owners access to them; that, as a property owner within the PRD, he and the other developers have a right of access to the drive. Ms. Barbara Bonds, as attorney, who indicated that she had been retained by the property owners association to represent their interests, reported that the letter to which Commissioner Nicholson had been referring, did not represent the property owners association. He, and the association, did have some concerns. She related that the property owners are trying to work with Bailey Corporation to come to an agreement on the fee schedule and the character of the patio homes to assure compatibility with the existing townhome development. She asked, though, that the Commission grant a deferral of two weeks to allow the negotiations to be concluded. She pointed out that, not only had the applicant failed to post the sign at least 30 days prior to the meeting, but that all property owners within the Andover Square "horizontal regime" had not been notified; that only owners within 200 feet had been notified. She said that the proposed patio homes are not in keeping with what was originally planned for the tract. Originally, 2 townhome buildings, each containing 6 or 7 units, was to have been located 4 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 CContinued) FILE NO.: Z -2904-C on the tract. Building 6 larger homes instead of 14 townhomes changes the scope of the maintenance requirements for the homes and changes the fee schedule. She stated that there are drainage problems which exist within the townhome development, and the association is concerned that the proposed development will compound the problem. She requested that an independent engineering study be done to assure the association that the drainage problem would not be made worse. She said that the association wanted to be sure that the architectural style would be consistent with the existing townhome development. Again, she asked for a deferral of the hearing in order to allow further negotiations to be conducted. Mr. Bailey stated that he, his corporate representatives, and representatives of the association had been meeting since mid-February; that there had been very little participation on the association member's part; but, that he was willing to work with the association to achieve an amicable agreement to the concerns. Commissioner Willis observed that the property owners' association issues are not issues which the Commission should be addressing; that the Commission is to address land use issues; and, that the issues which Ms. Bonds and other Andover Square representative are presenting are not within the preview of the Commission to address. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson concurred with Mr. Willis' observation. He added, though, that there had evidently been sufficient notice to property owners, and that the Commission should waive the bylaw requirement. Deputy City Attorney Giles explained that the notice issue which has been raised is a Commission bylaw requirement and is a supplemental notice requirement. He said that the issue to be considered by the Commission is whether the request of the amendment to the PRD is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Commissioner Nicholson moved that the amended PRD be approved, and that the bylaws be waived concerning the notification deficiency. Commissioner Oleson asked the applicant if the drainage problem will be corrected. Mr. Joe White, of White-Daters & Associates, the project engineer, replied that the drainage plan had been based on a completed project; that the drainage scheme was incomplete at the present time, since the project is incomplete; and, that the drainage problem will be corrected with the construction of the proposed phase. 61 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2904-C Ms. Liz Rainwater, representing the property owners' association board, said that the board wants assurance that the drainage problem will be corrected. She also stated that the board wanted assurances that the maintenance fees would be adequate to properly maintain the new buildings. Chairperson Chachere stated that the Commission cannot address the maintenance fee issue. Tad Borkowski, of the City Engineering staff, stated that the City's Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances would be enforced in the development, and would prohibit additional stormwater from being directed onto the property. With the discussion ended, the vote was taken on the motion which was on the floor: that the amended PRD be approved and that the bylaws be waived concerning the notification deficiency. The motion passed with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 0 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: Z -3606-A NAME: PARKER CADILLAC BODY SHOP -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Rainwood Drive, across the street from the intersection of Wickford Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Merrell Drive DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Parker Luxury Automobiles Norris Jerald Sparks Architect 1700 N. Shackleford Road 62 Berkshire Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72204 224-2400 660-4268 AREA: 0.857 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES• None Automobile Paint and Body Shop The applicant proposes the construction of a paint and body repair facility to consolidate the repair facilities for the Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn automobile dealerships owned by the applicant in the greater Little Rock area. The applicant maintains that the facility will house "state -of -the art" automobile paint and repair equipment and processes that are the most technically advanced in the industry. The applicant proposes to construct a building that is compatible with the "superior character and appearance that he has achieved in the architectural contribution of his Cadillac and Lexus dealership buildings." He continues that he is "most dedicated to not only crating a positive architectural statement..., but to maintaining his previously established standard for aesthetic character and quality image in all facilities." The applicant, "plans to invest in a handsome building with abundant landscaping and street appeal...." A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a PCD for a paint and body repair facility to consolidate the Cadillac, Lexus, and Saturn paint and body repair facilities of the greater Little Rock area. In addition to the paint and body repair use May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A proposed, the applicant seeks approval of all other uses by right listed in the C-3 zoning district use category. The applicant maintains that a "handsome building with abundant landscaping and street appeal" is proposed, and one that is in keeping with the architectural and aesthetic standards previous buildings for the applicant's Cadillac and Lexus dealerships have established. No waivers or variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, and the topography is fairly level. The site is currently zoned C-3, with C-3 zoned land on all other tracts to the east and west on the south side of Rainwood Dr. Across Rainwood, directly across the street from the proposed development, is an R-5 tract. Diagonally to the northwest from the site is a C-4 tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the driveway width must be reduced to 22 feet. The parking space at the far east edge of the front of the building will have to be eliminated. Sidewalks will be required to be constructed along the Rainwood Dr. frontage. Water Works has no objections to the development. Wastewater reports that sewer is available, and that there is no adverse effect to be considered. Existing manholes which are located on the property must be adjusted during construction to remain exposed at all times. Wastewater should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the buffer width proposed along Rainwood Rd. is 3 feet short of the full requirement of 9 feet. FI 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the Rodney Parham District. The adopted plan recommends commercial for the site. The proposed commercial use is questionable for this location, since the proposal is for a C-4 use. The type of C-4 use proposed must be carefully reviewed, with the negative impacts considered. E. ANALYSIS• Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial uses of the subject tract, the proposed use is a C-4, Open Display district use, the most intense zoning category for commercial uses. The remainder of the property south of Rainwood Dr. is C-3, and the uses are retail stores. Directly across the street from the proposed site is R-5, containing an established townhome development. To the northwest is a C-4 area which contains a mini -storage facility. The mini -storage C-4 use can be seen as an accessory use to the area residential uses. A paint and body shop, then, is much more intensive a use than anything else in the area, and is not in keeping with the types of uses which should be located directly across the street from a residential community. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) A representative of the applicant and the project architect were present. Staff presented the request and the Committee reviewed the items contained in the discussion outline. The applicant's representatives stated that the front overhead door was to remain closed at all times, unless a vehicle to be repaired was to be admitted. The vehicles to be repaired would be checked -in inside the building, then removed to the rear parking lot. With no other issues to be resolved, the Committee forwarded the item to the commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the request, and indicated that revised drawings had been submitted which addressed all technical concerns of staff. 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Mr. Fred Mosley introduced himself as the representative of the applicant in making the presentation of the request to the Commission. He stated that the new facility would combine all the paint and body shop activities of the three Parker dealerships in the greater Little Rock area, the Cadillac, the Lexus, and the Saturn dealerships. He explained that the new shop would include state -of -the art processes and equipment. Landscaping would be extensive. A 6 foot masonry and wood fence at the perimeter of the rear of the site would restrict both access and the view of the automobile storage area from neighbors. The front automobile access door would be closed at all times, except when an automobile were being delivered. He estimated that, on the average, there would be 10 vehicles brought to the facility on The only doors which are open for service are at the rear. From the front, he stated, the building would look like an office building. He recalled that the proposed site is the only remaining vacant commercial site in the area; that the existing zoning is C-3; and, that there are other C-4 uses in close proximity. Mr. Rick Farnan, a representative of the paint spray boot manufacturer, stated that the paint booth would comply with all national standards. Mr. Mosley went on to say that, as far as noise is concerned, the fact that most parts are replaced rather than re -used should alleviate this concern. Further, the front of the building would have an exterior insulation's system applied as the finish, and this system involves foam insulation with a cement -like stucco coating. The time of operation would be 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. There will be no delivery trucks to bring parts; the parts would be delivered by pick-up truck from the various dealerships. Trash would be picked up 3 times weekly, and would be retrieved from interior bins. There is no litter, as would be expected from C-3 businesses such as a restaurant. The Parker family has been in the area for 20 years, and attempts to be both a good neighbor and to maintain handsome buildings which are superior in appearance. Commissioner Nicholson asked where the body shop work is now performed. Mr. Mosley replied that the work is done at each of the dealerships. Commissioner Nicholson observed that the new facility would be no worse or no better than the existing sites. Mr. Mosley explained that the new facility should be better than the existing facilities, since there would be state -of -the art equipment and processes employed. 4 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Commissioner Nicholson asked for clarification as to the number of vehicles which would be repaired at any given time. Mr. Mosley said that there are 12 repair bays and 6 paint bays, with 22 holding spaces at the rear. Commissioner Nicholson observed that the usual concern is for battered and banged -up cars sitting around a paint and body shop. Mr. Mosley replied that with the service door opened only to admit a car for repair, and the fence at the rear holding area, the cars to be repaired would not normally be visible to the neighbors. He also said that the security lights at the rear holding area have limited spread and the standards are not as high as the building, so the night lighting should not be a problem to the neighbors. Mr. Chris Peek addressed the Commission, saying that he was on the Board of Directors of the Birkshire Park Townhomes Property Owners' Association; that the Board had authorized him to speak for the Association in presenting its opposition to the proposed development. Mr. Peek presented photos of the existing Parker paint and body shop holding yards, showing stacked up bumpers and other parts, as well as damaged autos. He expressed concern about possible noise and the unsightly view. He was concerned about the paint spray booth and who monitors its performance in emission control. He stated that 10 wreckers per day, day after day, bringing wrecked cars, would be very visible evidence that the building is a paint and body shop. Ms. Ruth Kent stated that she has a breathing problem, and is concerned about the spray booth emissions. She related that she has talked with a number of persons in the real estate business and has been told that the proximity of the paint and body shop to her home would lower the value of her home. She observed that one such person was incredulous that a paint and body shop would be considered for such a location as this one is proposed. The Parker Body Shop would be immediately across the street from her home. Commissioner Willis asked Ms. Kent for her reaction to the possibility of C-3 uses being constructed across from her home. Ms. Kent replied that there is a stigma attached to having a paint and body shop across the street from one's home; that she realized that there are many C-3 uses that can be constructed, but they would not have the same negative impact as a paint and body shop. She went on to say that if Parker were to sell the shop, another owner might not have the same commitment to aesthetics as the Parkers. 67 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606-A Various comments involving Commissioner Nicholson, Commissioner Willis, and Commissioner Putnam attempted to clarify the requested uses of the PCD application. Staff indicated that the request is for a "paint and body shop" and for "all C-3 uses by right". Therefore, any paint and body shop would be permitted, as well as any C-3 uses, without amending the PCD. Commissioner Nicholson stated that if Parker were going to own the facility, and if it were limited to "Parker Body Shop", this might make a difference. Ms. Tess Peek stated that she had visited the existing Parker body shop site, and said that it is just a body shop, "forget that it is a Cadillac body shop" . There are wrecked cars stored on the site and body parts lying around, and the existing facility is just like any other paint and body shop. Mr. Mosley stated that Parker intends to purchase the property and to operate the body shop. As far as the chain link fencing and razor wire at the existing facility, the new facility is not going to have this type fencing; it will be the board and masonry fence, and neighbors will not have a view of the holding area unless they climb the fence. As far as the paint booth is concerned, Pollution Control and Ecology will monitor the paint booth emissions. He stated that in the application, he and the Parker's had hoped that the townhome owners would view the application as a chance to determine the use which would be across the street from them, and that the use would be viewed as a benefit to the area. Commissioner Nicholson, reacting to the latter comment, stated that since the application seeks approval of all C-3 uses, then, if Parker ceases operation of the body shop, then the neighbors do not have the chance of determining the use, as stated. Mr. Mosley replied that Parker intends to operate the facility, but that if, in the future, the facility could not contain the activity, then it was felt that the building use should be able to be converted to another use. An office building would be at that time, he said, a possibility. Commissioner Nicholson reminded Mr. Mosley that an office building would not be allowed in a C-3 zoning district; that, if an office building as an alternative use were anticipated, then the zoning should be an 0-1, 0-2, or even 0-3. She added, that a stated concern of the neighbors was the convertibility aspect. Mr. Mosley stated that the PCD application could be modified to provide for only the Parker Body Shop use, and not for any of the other uses continued in the original application. 11 'May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3606 - Commissioner Putnam reaffirmed that the application should be amended to restrict the use to the Parker Body Shop only, and that if that use ceases, any other use would have to come back to the Commission and Board for an amendment to the PCD. Mr. Mosley stated that the application was amended to reflect this restriction. Commissioner Oleson asked for the reaction of the neighbors to the amended application, with the restrictions imposed. Mr. Peek voiced the neighbors, rejection of the application for any paint and body shop use on the site, despite the amendment of the application. Ms. Kent agreed with the stated objection. Commissioner Nicholson stated that, in her opinion, a lot of the C-3 uses which can go in on the site without any review are much worse than the applicant's proposal as amended, and, with the change in technology of body shops, the Parker Body Shop will not have the negative impact which the neighbors anticipate. She added that, the body shop which is anticipated in this application is not a C-4 type activity. A motion was made and seconded to approve the Parker Cadillac Body Shop PCD. The vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. Without the required 6 votes to recommend approval of the PCD, the matter was deferred until the May 17, 1994 Commission hearing. f►] 'May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -5756-A NAME: REES DEVELOPMENT -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of Bowman Road, approximately 0.25 mile north of Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: John Rees Rees Development 12115 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72211 223-228 AREA: ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: ZONING• PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11,225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9900 2 FT. NEW STREET: PROPOSED USES: Commercial A PCD was approved by the Planning Commission in November, 1993, and was established by the Board of Directors in January , 1994. The approved plan consisted of two buildings, the southern most building containing 9,000 square feet and being a single -story building; the second, a building with a total of 24,250 square feet and a partial second floor. Each building was to face westward towards Bowman Rd., with the substantial portion of the parking being buffered from the residential area in Birchwood by the buildings. The applicant has submitted an amended site plan which contains one building, a one-story building containing 25,090 square feet, which is oriented north onto a large parking lot which extends from Bowman Rd. on the west to the Birchwood neighborhood boundary. The use indicated is for a book store. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for an amended PCD for the Rees Development PCD, recommended for approval in November, 1993, and established by the Board in January, 1994. The proposed amended site plan indicates a single one-story building containing 25,090 square feet. This is a change from the approved plan which indicated two separate buildings, the southern -most building being a single -story building May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5756-A containing 9,000 square feet and the northern -most building being a partial two-story building containing a total of 24,250 square feet. In lieu of the buildings being oriented towards Bowman Rd. with the parking being primarily between the buildings and Bowman Rd., the revised site plan shows the single building being oriented northward and toward a large single parking facility which extends from Bowman Rd. to the Birchwood neighborhood boundary. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, heavily wooded, and has a substantial differential in terrain across it. The existing zoning of the site is PCD. To the east is the Birchwood neighborhood in an R-2 zoning district. To the south is a C-1 tract. To the north and to the west across Bowman Rd. is a large C-3 tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that the south driveway must be moved 10 feet south to line up with the parking which is adjacent to the building. The dumpster is to be relocated for better access. Place landscape islands in the parking lot. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable in the development of this site. Water Works reports that an additional public fire hydrant will probably be required. This would be installed by Water Works crews at Water Works expense, but would need to be coordinated with the construction of this project. Wastewater reports that a sewer main is located on the west side of Bowman Rd. If access cannot be made to this sewer main, then a sewer main extension with easements will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the eastern perimeter of the tract. This screen may either be a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings. The dumpster will need to be screened with an 8 foot high opaque wall or fence on a minimum of 3 sides. E May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5756-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted plan recommends mixed office and commercial. while the request may not meet the spirit of mixed office and commercial, it does meet the requirements of this land use classification. There is, then, no land use issue. All that has been submitted as of this writing is an architectural site plan. There is no application form; no fee has been paid; no project narrative has been furnished; no proposed uses have been formally requested; and, no engineered site plan with the required exhibits has been submitted. E. ANALYSIS• Because of the critical deficiencies in the submittal, a proper review by staff cannot proceed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends withdrawal of the application, pending the applicant's submission of a proper application and payment of the application fee. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. John Rees, the applicant, was present. The Committee reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline, and indicated to Mr. Rees that the request could not be reviewed due to the deficiencies of the submittal. The Committee indicated that Mr. Rees needs to defer the hearing of his request to the next Subdivision agenda, and that the Committee would need to review the completed submission at its next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the developer, dated April 29, 1994, asking that the item be withdrawn. The request for withdrawal was included on the Consent Agenda, and the withdrawal was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 •May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.• 7 FILE NO • Z-5817 NAME: SOUTH HILL TERRACE ADDITION -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Highway 10, approximately 0.3 mile west of the east Taylor Loop intersection DEVELOPER• William L. Dean CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 666-4418 AREA• 1.27 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: ENGINEER• William L. Dean CIVIL DESIGN, INC. 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 666-4418 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Office 1. Deferral of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage until the sewer main is installed by Wastewater Utility. 2. Deferral of the landscaping and buffer requirements along the front 20 feet of the property until the sewer main is installed by Wastewater Utility. 3. Deferral of the requirement to provide Stormwater Detention for the project until the Phase II construction. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes, as a Phase I program, the use of an existing residential structure located at the rear of the subject property for their civil engineering office, and, as a Phase II program, to construct a new, additional office building at the front of the property. The Phase I proposal includes: the remodeling of the existing structure; abandonment of the existing driveway and closure of the existing Highway 10 curb cut; and, construction of a new driveway and curb cut. The new curb cut is proposed to be 24 feet wide. For the Phase I development, a 12 foot wide drive is proposed to transition from the 24 foot wide apron. For Phase II development, the driveway would be widened to 24 feet. Also, for the Phase I development, the applicant proposes the construction of a new septic system on site, then, May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5817 when public sewer is available, to tie onto the public system, abandon the septic system, and proceed with Phase II development. When the public sewer main is extended, any newly constructed sidewalk and landscaping would be torn up. The applicant, then, asks that the requirement to construct the sidewalk along the Highway 10 frontage be deferred until the sewer main has been installed. The applicant also asks that any landscaping and buffer requirements along the Highway 10 frontage be deferred until construction work for the new sewer main is completed. Since Phase I proposes use of the existing house for office use, and no major work is to be accomplished on the site, the applicant seeks approval to defer providing the stormwater detention on the site until Phase II construction is accomplished. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for the establishment of a POD for an office development undertaken by Civil Design, Inc. The Phase I development is proposed to consist of remodeling of the existing home located at the rear of the site for use as the firm's engineering offices, and enclosing the existing carport and connecting it to the house to be a storage area for engineering equipment and supplies. The Phase II development consists of construction of a new office building for lease to the south of the existing building. The existing septic tank and field lines are proposed to be abandoned, and a new private disposal system is to be installed for use until the public sewer service in available. The existing drive and apron off Highway 10 is to be abandoned, and a new drive apron is proposed to be built at the western edge of the property. For Phase I development, a 12 foot wide drive is proposed to be provided; for Phase II, the driveway would be widened to 24 feet. The 24 foot wide curbcut is proposed to be constructed at this time, but a transition from the 24 foot width to the 12 foot drive is proposed. Compliance with the Highway 10 Overlay requirements for signage and landscaping is proposed. However, deferrals from the requirement to construct the sidewalk until the sewer main is installed is requested; a deferral from the requirement to install the landscaping and buffering until the sewer main construction is completed is sought; and, since minimal construction is to take place as part of Phase I development, a deferral of the requirement to provide Stormwater Detention until the Phase II construction is sought. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a single residential structure located at the rear of the tract. There is a carport located at the east side of the house. 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5817 The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, with R-2 zoning on all land to the north, east, and west. Directly across the street is a PCD for a veterinary clinic. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that an additional 10 feet of right-of- way will be required along Highway 10. A sidewalk will be required to be constructed. The driveway width needs to be increased to 20 feet. The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Water Works reports that an additional public fire hydrant will probably be required by the Fire Department. This would be installed by Water Works crews at Water Works expense, but would need to be coordinated with the construction of this project. Wastewater reports that a sewer main extension with easements will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co., Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that the 15 foot buffer along the west perimeter is short of the 25 foot required by the Highway 10 Overlay District regulations. A sprinkler system to water plants will be required. A 6 foot high opaque screen, either a "good neighbor" wood fence of dense evergreen plantings, is required along the northern, eastern, and western perimeters of the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The plan submitted as of this writing is deficient in the following ways: the owner certification, owner address, and source of title are not provided; the names of abutting land owners are not shown; the zoning classifications of the site and of the abutting properties are not shown; and the engineering and surveying certifications are not provided and executed. The Planning Staff reports that the site is located in the River Mountain District. The adopted plan recommends transition zone. There is no land use issue. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in the submittal are minimal and can be easily remedied. 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5817 The use of the site for office uses is appropriate and in conformance with the adopted Land Use Plan. As long as Wastewater Utility has plans for extension of the sewer main across the property within a reasonable time, the requested deferrals seem reasonable. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Bill Dean, the applicant and the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the request, and Mr. Dean outlined his request to the Committee. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Dean the deficiencies and comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Dean assured the Committee that the needed corrections would be made, and the Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues remaining involving the design or plan, and that Engineering has no objection to the request for a deferral of providing stormwater detention until the Phase II construction. There are, staff related, concerns regarding the open-ended approval of a deferral of sidewalk and landscaping requirements which have been requested. Staff related a recommendation that a time limit be imposed of having to install the landscaping and sidewalk within 60 days of the installation of the sewer main, or within 3 years, whichever comes first. Staff stated that the applicant had agreed to this time limit. The recommendation of approval of the POD and of the waivers was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the item was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 4 -May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -3407-A NAME: ENTERGY FIVE-YEAR MASTER PLAN -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the east side of Fourche Dam Pike (AKA Thibault Road), approximately 0.4 mile south of Frazier Pike DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: AP&L/ENTERGY SERVICES James E. Ford, P.E. P. 0. Box 8082 AP&L/ENTERGY SERVICES Little Rock, AR 72203 P. 0. Box 8082 377-4428 Little Rock, AR 72203 377-4428 AREA: 117 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-3 PROPOSED USES: Industrial PLANNING DISTRICT: 25 CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 5 -year master plan for expansion of the existing development at their Little Rock Port Industrial Park site. The proposal outlines site development options for the west 49 acres of the 117 -acre tract to include future construction of 5 additional buildings on the site. The construction of one of the buildings, the "T&D Systems" building is immanent. The applicant proposes to provide the required stormwater detention for the 49 acre site and the required improvements to Fourche Dam Pike/Thibault Rd. during the construction of the "T&D" building. The master site development plan to cover anticipated development over the next 5 years is submitted in order to facilitate planning for future development at the Port site, and to gain approval of the site planning for the "T&D" building for which a building permit is being sought at this time. The east 68 acre tract is not included in the request, and no work to the boundary street to the east, Frazier Pike, is proposed. No waivers or variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is sought for a master site plan for further development of the AP&L/Entergy facility at the Little Rock Port Industrial Park on the west 49 acre tract fronting on Fourche Dam Pike/Thibault Rd. The construction of the "T&D Systems" building is immanent, and May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3407-A approval of the multiple buildings site plan review is requested. At the same time, to facilitate future development planning, buildings which are proposed over the next 5 years for construction are included for review at this time. A total of 5 major buildings are indicated. The applicant proposes to construct the required stormwater detention for the 49 acre site during construction of the "T&D" building, and to construct the Master Street Plan required street improvements on Fourche Dam Pike/Thibault Rd. at this same time. The east 68 acre tract, nor improvements to Frazier Pike along the east tract, are included in the current proposal. No variances or waivers are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is in the Little Rock Port Industrial Park, and 6 buildings currently occupy the site. The existing zoning is I-3, with I-3 zoning on all abutting land to the east, north, and west. The City Limits line borders the site to the south. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering notes that along Fourche Dam Pike/Thibault Rd., dedication of right-of-way will be required to provide 30 feet from the centerline to the east. One-half street improvements to collector standard will be required along this boundary street. When the portion of the site which has frontage on Frazier Pike is developed, the Frazier Pike right-of-way will need to be increased an additional 15 feet and Master Street Plan improvements will be required. Water Works reports that additional on-site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply. This charge has been paid for the 27 acres west of the railroad tracks, but not for the remainder of the site, so the fee will have to be paid prior to the development of the additional area east of the tracks. Wastewater reports that sewer is available and that there is no adverse effect. Arkansas Power and Light Co., Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review reports that buffer areas proposed comply requirements. 2 the schematic landscape and with the ordinance May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3407-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: There are no issues to be resolved. E. ANALYSIS: The site is a large tract with good separation of the buildings and good traffic circulation. There are no deficiencies in the submittal, and the applicant proposes to meet all ordinance requirements. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Representatives of the applicant were present. Staff presented the request; the applicant's representative outlined the scope of the project. The committee reviewed with the applicant's representatives the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee then forwarded the item to the Commission for final approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there are no issues to be resolved, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The item was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5318-A NAME: WALGREENS BASELINE AND GEYER SPRINGS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Baseline Road and Geyer Springs Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Gary Hawkins Frank Riggins HAWKINS-SMITH THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 7136 S. Yale, #300 P. O. Box 3837 Tulsa, OK 74136 Little Rock, AR 72203 (918) 492-2435 375-5331 AREA: 2.78 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 14 CENSUS TRACT: 41.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Commercial 0 The applicant proposed the construction of a Walgreens Drug Store on a developed site currently occupied by the Carrie's Antiques, Crafts, and Collectibles building. To provide a site for the new 13,500 square foot Walgreens store, the applicant proposes the demolition of a substantial portion of the existing Carrie's building and its rehabilitation for the continued use of the building. The two buildings would occupy 37% of the site, and parking for 103 vehicles is indicated. The Walgreens store is to include a drive-thru window for prescription sales, and this will be located on the south side of the building. The dumpster and service and delivery area will be located on the east side of the building. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site plan for the development of a new Walgreens Drug Store. The site is currently occupied by the Carrie's Antiques, Crafts, and Collectibles building, and a portion of the existing building is to be removed to provide the site for the new Walgreens store. The existing building is to be reconstructed as a reduced size building and is to continue to be occupied as a retail sales business. The new Walgreens is to be a 13,500 square foot store and is to have a drive-thru for pharmacy sales to be located on the south May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5318-A end of the building. The combined floor area of the two buildings is to occupy 53% of the site. Parking for 103 vehicles is to be provided. The dumpster and service and delivery area is to be located on the east side of the building. Parking lot lighting will be with 400 watt high pressure sodium light fixtures on 30 foot high poles. No waivers or variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by the Carrie's Antiques, Crafts, and Collectibles building. The Rally's Hamburger restaurant is located at the corner of the property on a separate lot. The existing zoning is C-3. There is R-2 property abutting the site to the east and south. Across Baseline Rd. and Geyer Springs Rd. shopping enters in C-3 zoned areas. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering comments that adequate parking for the new development must be provided. Construction of a sidewalk along Geyer Springs Rd. will be required. Water Works reports that an additional public and/or private fire hydrant will be required. Wastewater reports that sewer service must be provided by the developer. The sewer main is located in Baseline Rd. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the site without comment. Landscape review reports that the 6 foot wide buffers proposed along Baseline Rd. and the eastern perimeter are short of the 17 foot and 14 foot buffers, respectively, which are required. A 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking areas and the building is required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The parking proposed to be provided is approximately 1/2 as much as is required by the Ordinance. The new building has 13,500 square feet. The portion of the existing building which is to remain has about 30,000 square feet. Based on the requirements for a shopping center, the square footage of these combined buildings will require 193 parking spaces. Only 103 spaces are provided. 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5318-A IRE F. The drawing needs to provide existing building which is to dimensions, dimensions of the property lines, etc. ANALYSIS• more information about the remain: the building building with reference to the At least some additional parking needs to be provided. Based on the requirements for commercial parking (in lieu of the requirements for "shopping center" parking), the site should have at least 145 spaces. The construction of a new building and the revitalization of the site is a worthwhile project, and the proposed development should be encouraged. The Commission, though, needs to be assured that sufficient parking is being provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant providing adequate parking to meet the needs of the uses on the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the scope of the request, and Mr. Riggins reviewed the proposal with the Committee. The Committee discussed the need for additional parking on the site. Mr. Riggins indicated that perhaps some more of the existing Carrie's building could be removed to provide additional space for parking. The Committee reviewed the remaining items in the discussion outline, and, with Mr. Riggins' assurances that the items would be addressed, the Committee forwarded the site plan to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the item, and Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, representing the applicant, reviewed with the Commission the proposal. He introduced Mr. Mike McClain, a partner in the development company who proposes to develop the project. Mr. Riggins related that the plan involved demolition of approximately one-half of the existing Carrie's building and its remodeling; approximately 22,600 square feet of this building would remain. The demolition would provide area for the new 3 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) _F_ILE NO.: Z -5318-A building plus parking for 127 vehicles. He indicated that there would be a wood privacy fence constructed along the east property line which abuts the residence to the east. He reported that landscaping on the site would be brought up to current ordinance standards. Mr. Riggins recalled that the original submission reviewed by the Subdivision Committee had fewer parking spaces and a northerly projection on the existing building which was to remain. Since the Subdivision Committee review, this wing has been removed and the space has been used for additional parking. Staff asked Mr. Rigging if the plan being presented accommodated the changes required by Public Works regarding the three parking spaces in the throat of the driveway off Baseline and abutting the Rally's lot. Mr. Riggins indicated that this change had been made. Mr. Mike Pierce, president of Rally's of Arkansas, inspected the plan and assured himself that the proposed development would not affect the Rally's site. Commissioner Ball inquired of staff if the parking which was being provided would be sufficient. Staff responded that there should be adequate parking for the uses. Commissioner Wyrick asked the developer to indicate the location of the new entrance to the existing building. Mr. Riggins indicated that the decision had not been finalized, but that it would have to be on the west or north faces of the remodeled building. Staff reported that Mrs. Faye Rollins, who lives in the home abutting the site to the east, had contacted staff regarding her concerns about the development and its effect on her. Staff related that Mrs. Rollins was concerned that the building would block visibility of her home from police and passersby, and her security would be affected; that she was concerned about the increase of traffic on Baseline, causing it to be more dangerous for her to pull onto the street; and, that it would cause an increase in crime in the area. Mrs. Faye Rollins confirmed the staff report on her concerns. She explained that she has difficulty pulling onto Baseline from her drive, and that more traffic would be increase the difficulty and danger to her. Staff reported that a field investigate had been conducted to locate the new Walgreens building in relation to Mrs. Rollins" home. Staff reported that the new building would be almost 4 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5318-A entirely behind the rear line of the house, and would be over 33 feet west of the property line. Looking out of her kitchen window, Mrs. Rollins would look onto the front parking lot of the store. Her home and rear yard would have a great deal of visibility from the west and northwest. The required fence, however, would need to either be eliminated or reduced in height to achieve the desired visibility. Mr. Riggins, Mr. McClain, and Mrs. Rollins reviewed the plans together, and Mr. Riggins reported that Walgreens would accommodate Mrs. Rollins concern regarding retaining visibility of her home and rear yard, and that if she wanted either no fence or a lower fence, Walgreens would agree to do whatever she wanted. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 9A FILE NO.: Z -2970-C NAME: WALGREENS TWELFTH AND FAIR PARK -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the southwest corner of W. 12th. Street and Fair Park Blvd. DEVELOPER• Gary Hawkins HAWKINS-SMITH 7136 S. Yale, #300 Tulsa, OK 74136 (918) 492-2435 ENGINEER• Frank Riggins THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock AR 72203 375-5331 AREA: 1.19 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 & R-3 PROPOSED USES: Drug Store (C-1 zoning request pending) PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT• 18 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the construction of a new Walgreens Drug Store, and, to provide the site for the new building, proposes to demolish the existing buildings on the site. The new drug store building is proposed to face the Fair Park Blvd. -W. 12th. St. intersection, and the site is to stretch from Fair Park Blvd. west to Taylor Street, and take the north two-thirds± of the block. The building is to occupy 27% of the site and parking for 58 vehicles is proposed Driveways off Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor Street are indicated. A drive-thru for pharmacy sales is to be located on the west end of the building. The receiving and dumpster area is to be located on the south side of the building. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission of a site plan for a new Walgreens Drug Store is requested. The applicant proposes the construction of a 13,500 square foot building on a 1.19 acre site. Provision for parking for 58 vehicles is made. A drive-thru on the west end of the building is proposed. The service and dumpster area are to be located on the rear - south side of the building. No variances or waivers are requested. May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently developed, containing a retail store at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and W. 12th. St.; an office at the corner of Fair Park Blvd. and Taylor St.; and a residence on Taylor St. south of the office. These buildings are to be razed and the site cleared for the new construction. The existing zoning of the site is C-3 and R-3. The Commission, at its April 5, 1994 hearing, recommended a change in the zoning of the entire site to C-1. The Commission imposed the condition on the rezoning that site plan review be conducted. The review at this time, then, is a result of this condition. The rezoning request is heard by the Board of Directors on the evening of May 3, 1994. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Engineering reports that improvements along W. 12th. St. will be required. A right turn lane with a taper will be required, and this will involve a requirement for 6 additional feet of right-of-way. A 31 foot radius onto Fair Park will be required. Improvements to Taylor St. will be required to include widening to provide a right turn lane and a 25 foot minimum radius at the intersection with W. 12th. St. The entrance off Taylor needs to be eliminated; Taylor cannot handle the traffic. An entrance off W. 12th. st. may be approved. A return for backing at the southeast parking area must be provided. Water Works reports that the fire department needs to evaluate this site plan to determine if additional public or private fire hydrants are required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. The Fire Department reports that on the west side interior drive, where the canopy is located, the drive width needs to be 20 feet of unobstructed width. Also, the Fire Department requests that "No Parking. Tow -Away" signs be placed around the building. Landscape review reports that the landscape strip along W. 12th. St. must maintain a minimum width of 4 feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The site abuts R-3 zoned area at the southwest portion of the site along the Taylor St. frontage, and residences are located to the south on both sides of Taylor St. Adequate 2 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C buffering of the site along concern. with the service proximity to the residence there needs to be imposed a screening. E. ANALYSIS• this area needs to be a primary and dumpster area in so close a on the abutting lot to the south, requirement for substantial There are substantial design considerations remaining to be remedied. The site may be too small for the development. There are right-of-way requirements and additional traffic lane construction requirements which will impinge on the available land. There is the Fire Department requirement of unobstructed access along the west side of the building. There are landscaping and buffer requirements which must be dealt with. There is the matter of the proximity of the building service area to a residence which needs to be addressed. Unless the engineer and the applicant can accommodate these requirements, there appears that there is insufficient land area for the proposed scale of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: There are still too many unresolved issues for staff to make a positive recommendation. The staff will have a recommendation after the applicant's presentation at the Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the request, and the City Engineering staff reviewed with Mr. Rigging the requirements for additional right-of-way, the construction of an additional traffic lane, the requirements for repositioning the drive accesses, etc. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Riggins the items in the discussion outline, then forwarded the request to the Commission for the hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Mr. Jim Hathaway, representing the developer, reported that there was a need to defer the hearing on the request until the May 17, 1994 Commission meeting. He related that there were concerns of the neighbors who live on Taylor Street, and he, the developer, and the neighbors need additional time to meet and try to work out accommodations on the concerns. The request for the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 2 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 -May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9A (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2970-C Commissioner Oleson, noticing someone who had been present at a previous Commission meeting when that person had been incorrectly informed that the hearing would be on that date, asked that person if she had, indeed, been present at that previous meeting. When the answer was in the affirmative, Ms. Oleson indicated that it was not fair to the citizens who have taken off work to be present on a number of occasions, then to have the hearing deferred and have to take off work again. Commissioner Nicholson asked staff to be sure and place the hearing on this issue at the first of the agenda when it is heard again. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 10 5-1019 Name: Mike Litwa, Tropical-Sno Subdivision Site Plan Location: 315 North Shackleford Road (Kroger Store Site) Area: 5± acres Zoning: C-3 General Commercial Planning District: 2 Census Tract: 22.5 REQUEST: Mr. Litwa operates a shaved ice business that operates seasonally, from late spring to fall. He has been on this site several years as a temporary use with privilege license. The operation has increased in intensity and he desires to build a deck and benches for customers in an area against the north property line of this parking lot. He will occupy four parking spaces now used by a charitable organization to park an attended pickup. That trailer will be moved east to a new site. The Tropical-Sno trailer is 8 feet by 12 feet and the deck is approximately 180 square feet. STAFF REPORT: This issue comes to the Commission as the result of a change in administrative policy and procedure and a enforcement action. Mr. Litwa provided decks, benches, etc. on this site last year and staff felt that created a level of permanence we did not intend when issuing the privilege license. Our attempt with this filing is to permit him to submit a site plan for a permanent site with the accessory structures included. After commission approval, he would then be treated in the manner of any other satellite business in a shopping center. He would buy a privilege license each year and be permitted to locate in the same place on the site with the same design. He would not have to submit to further review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the requested site plan as presented subject to submittal of a letter of authorization from Kroger permitting Mr. Litwa to act as agent. May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1019 PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The Planning staff presented the application to the Commission as having been resolved of all attending issues. The Planning staff offered the item for placement on the Consent Agenda for approval. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Litwa's attorney, David Henry, was present but did not speak to the issue. After a brief discussion of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted on a motion to approve the item. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 0a May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.:- S-1020 NAME: CARENETWORK -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of W. Markham Street, approximately 300 feet west of Santa Fe Trail DEVELOPER: DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACTOR: Patricia and Barry Solomon Larry Watts CARENETWORK D&H CONSTRUCTION 9712 W. Markham St. 3500 J. E. Davis Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72209 223-3333 565-2451 AREA: 1.51 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Office The applicant proposes to construct an additional building at the rear of their current office site. The existing building is situated at the front of the lot, with existing building and parking taking the front two-thirds of the site. This leaves the rear one-third of the site unused. With the new building, an additional 15 parking spaces is proposed. Landscape buffering is to be maintained along the north property line abutting the residential properties, with an 8 foot high solid board fence being erected along this property line. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of a site plan for the addition of a second building to the existing site of CareNetwork, a medical personnel provider organization, is requested. This new building is to be 2 -story and contain 7,840 square feet, and is to be used for expansion of office space for the current business. The proposal includes adding 15 new parking spaces. A 16 foot deep landscape buffer area is to be provided along the north property line where residential property is the neighbor. An 8 foot high solid board fence is proposed along this north property line. May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1020 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The front two-thirds of the site is occupied by the current CareNetwork facility, and contains a one and one-half story building with 8,225 square feet and asphalt parking for 41 vehicles. The site is currently zoned 0-3. There is 0-3 zoning to the east and west. To the north, abutting the lot, are residences in an R-2 zoned area. Across W. Markham St. is Markham Street Baptist Church in an area zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office reports that a grading and stormwater detention plan will be required prior to a building permit being approved. Water works indicates that care must be taken to protect the 39" raw water main which crosses the site. A site fire hydrant will be required. The Fire Department will need to evaluate the site plan to determine the location of the needed hydrant. Wastewater indicates that sewer is available and that there will be no adverse effect. Landscape review reports that a 3 foot wide building landscape strip is required between the public parking areas and the building. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the plan without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 5 foot easement along the east, north, and west property lines. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The dimensions for the existing building need to be shown on the plan. The existing building contains 8,225 square feet; the proposed building is to contain 7,840 square feet. The total building area on the site, then, will be 16,065 square PA May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO • S-1020 feet. This requires a provision for 41 parking spaces to meet Ordinance requirements. The parking which has been indicated on the site plan provides for 54 spaces. The parking requirements, then, are met. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed expansion can meet all density, parking, setback, landscaping, and buffer requirements. There are only minimal deficiencies in the submittal, and.these can be easily remedied. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant complying with the noted requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Barry Solomon, the applicant, and Larry Watts, with D&H Construction, were present. Staff and the Committee reviewed with Solomon and Mr. Watts the comments noted in the discussion outline. Staff mentioned that there had appeared to be a parking problem when a staff member had visited the site, with cars occupying all available parking spaces and parking on the vacant land at the rear of the site. The question was posed whether there would be adequate parking with the addition of the new building. It was noted, though, that the plan meets the parking requirements. The applicant mentioned that additional parking is being arranged for those occasional times when staff meetings are conducted and there is an overflow of vehicles. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved. The item was included in the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z -5235-A NAME: LOCATION• Williams Magnet School - Conditional Use Permit 7301 Evergreen Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Little Rock School District by Fred M. Perkins, Jr. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion and remodeling of this existing elementary school. The school is located on an R-2 zoned, 13.6 acre site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The school is located on the south side of Evergreen Street, two blocks east of Mississippi Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The elementary school was constructed on this site in 1958 and is located in the heart of a single family residential neighborhood. The building sits on a 13.6 acre site and has adequate setback from all property lines. The proposed expansion will not be incompatible with the continued use of this property as an elementary school. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The school will have a total of 30 classrooms, requiring 30 on-site parking spaces. There are 41 existing parking spaces on the site and a separate bus loading/unloading area. 4. Screening and Buffers This application requires no additional screening or buffers. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. 6. Utility Comments No comments May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5235-A 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to add a 2,440 addition and do some interior remodeling to comply with directives imposed by the federal court. A larger seating area is needed to serve the school's parent group and the most economical and practical solution is by expanding the existing cafeteria, which causes the existing administration area to be relocated. The proposed 2,440 square foot expansion will house the administrative area. The building contains a separate activity room and by expanding the cafeteria area, the new larger area will also serve as an activity space. This will allow the conversion of the present activity area into two classrooms. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant, Fred Perkins, was present. The Subdivision Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Fred Perkins, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO • Z -5535 - NAME: LOCATION• St. Michael's Episcopal Church - Revised Conditional Use Permit 12401 Cantrell Road OWNER/APPLICANT: The Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas by Charles Witsell, Jr. PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the phased construction of a church and related facilities on this R-2 zoned, 6.5 acre site. On January 14, 1992, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for St. Michael's to construct a church on 4.3 acres of the property. Since that time, St. Michael's has acquired the adjoining 2.2 acres and has revised the site plan to include the complete 6.5 acres. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The proposed church site is located on the south side of Cantrell Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of Sam Peck Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood Uses and zoning in the immediate vicinity are varied. A large area of multifamily zoning extends east of the proposed church sites. Several large apartment complexes are located in this area. A single family residential subdivision is located across the lake, to the south of this site. An area of office and multifamily zoning is located west of this site, at the intersection of Cantrell and Sam Peck Roads. A large church is currently under construction directly north of the Sam Peck/Cantrell Road intersection. A heating and air conditioning company is located adjacent to the west of the church site. This proposed church will be compatible with other uses in the neighborhood. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5535-A 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The applicant proposes a two phased development with parking to correspond to each phase. The phase one worship space will seat approximately 225 persons. A seventy-five space parking lot will be built with this phase. By the completion of phase two, the worship area will seat approximately 450 persons. An additional 85 parking spaces are proposed for construction during this future phase giving a total of approximately 160 on-site parking spaces. A 450 seat sanctuary requires 113 on-site parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. All landscaped areas must comply with the site design and development standards established in the Highway 10 Scenic Overlay Design Ordinance. A 6 foot opaque screen is required along the south, east and west perimeters where adjacent to residential properties. All landscaped areas must have sprinkler systems. 5. City Engineer Comments Dedicate right-of-way on Cantrell Road (Highway 10) to 55 feet from centerline. Construct sidewalk on all Cantrell Road (Highway 10) frontage. Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. 6. Highway 10 Scenic Overlay Design District Compliance with the Highway 10 Overlay Site Design and Development Standards is required. One of the existing residential structures which is being incorporated into this development does encroach slightly into the required front and side yard setbacks. Staff feels that these encroachments do not have a negative impact on the Highway 10 standards, as the structure is existing and no change is proposed in its design. The site is allowed a single monument ground mounted sign. The sign shall be a maximum of 6 feet in height and 72 square feet in area. 7. Utility Comments Southwestern Bell Telephone requires a 5 foot easement along portions of the north west and east perimeters. Arkansas 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5535-A Power and Light requires a 15 foot easement along the north and east property lines and an easement 7 1/2 feet either side of an existing overhead power line near the west property line. On-site fire protection is required. 8. Analysis On January 14, 1992, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for St. Michael's allowing for the construction of a church on 4.3 acres of this site. No construction has taken place since that time. The church has subsequently acquired the 2.2 acre parcel adjacent to the east of the 4.3 acre site. The applicant requests a conditional use permit which would include a revision of the previously approved site plan and which also includes the additional 2.2 acre site and the two single family homes located on it. The acquisition of this second parcel has made possible a less dense site design. The parking lots and building footprint have been "broken up" so as to make better use of the topography and to provide a better and more natural site development. There will be offices open daily and classrooms in use daily for a variety of meetings and classes. It is possible that there will ultimately be a preschool or "mother's day out" program. No other private school is proposed. The two houses on the recently acquired 2.3 acre site will remain as single family homes for the immediate future. One may be used as a parsonage or caretaker's house. At some point in the future, they may be converted to classroom or office use (as a part of the church program), a youth or retreat center or removed and replaced with a distant third or fourth phase of program development which will require a return to the Planning Commission. The proposed steeple structure will not exceed 70 feet in height. 9. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer and Utility Comments 3. Compliance with the Highway 10 Scenic Overlay Design District standards 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 13 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5535-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Charles Witsell and David Sargent were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and outlined the City Engineer, Utility and Landscape Comments noted above. Mr. Witsell asked about the possibility of placing a smaller directional sign on the property in addition to the principal ground mounted sign. He was advised to meet with staff to determine what, if any, additional signage is allowed. During the discussion of the City Engineer Comments, Mr. Sargent stated that Tim Daters was researching the possibility that all required right-of-way on Cantrell Road had been dedicated. Mr. Witsell then questioned the need for sidewalks along Cantrell Road. He stated that it would be very difficult to install a sidewalk due to the topography of the site. He was advised that sidewalks were required and that a waiver could only be granted by the Board of Directors. In response to a question, Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, stated that the required screening could be of natural vegetation rather than a wooden fence. He emphasized the necessity of adequately screening all activity areas, such as parking lots, from the adjacent residential properties. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Charles Witsell, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z-5815 LOCATION• Alltel - Conditional Use Permit Ray Winder Field, Monroe and Jonesboro Streets OWNER/APPLICANT: Arkansas Travelers Baseball Club, Inc./Tracy Gill of Finley and Company on behalf of Alltel Cellular Associates PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 95 foot tall, monopole communications tower on a lease area located within the R-2 zoned Ray Winder Field Baseball Park. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The proposed tower site is located within the Ray Winder Field Baseball Park, south of the right field grandstand. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood Ray Winder Field is located in a large area of R-2 zoned, public and institutional uses on the north side of I-630. The immediate uses in the area are the Little Rock Zoo, Red Cross, a National Guard Armory and the War Memorial Fitness Center. Located across I-630, over 200 feet south of the proposed tower site, is an area of mixed residential zoning. The proposed tower site, within the confines of the ballpark, will have no effect on the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking There are several large parking lots which serve Ray Winder Field, the Little Rock Zoo and other War Memorial Park activities. This proposed use requires no on-site parking. 4. Screening and Buffers The proposed tower site is located on a small lease area that is within the confines of Ray Winder Field Baseball Park. The tower is within an area enclosed by a 55 foot May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5815 tall solid wood and chain link outfield fence. No additional screening or buffers are required. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to place a 95 foot tall monopole communications tower on a small lease area located within Ray winder Field Baseball Park. Included with the tower is a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment shelter. Both the tower and the equipment shelter are located within an area enclosed by a 55 foot tall solid wood and chain link outfield fence. There are several 100 foot tall stadium light poles along this outfield fence. For all intents and purposes, the proposed monopole tower will hardly be noticed since it will line up with the 55 foot tall outfield fence and 100 foot tall stadium light poles. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Tracy Gill, Mark Alderfer and Randy Frazier were present representing the application. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that there were no outstanding issues. The Committee reviewed the proposed tower location and its relationship to the outfield wall and outfield light poles. It was felt that the tower would not stand out from other features in the area. The Committee then forwarded this item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Tracy Gill, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z-5819 LOCATION• Land Duplex - Conditional Use Permit 4016 West 11th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: James Land PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the conversion of this existing, R-3 zoned, single family residential structure into a duplex. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the north side of West 11th Street, between South Elm and South Cedar Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located in an area of mixed zonings and uses ranging from R-3 to 0-3 and C-3. There are other duplexes in the immediate vicinity and allowing the conversion of this structure to a duplex would not be out of character with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking A duplex requires a total of three on-site parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct three parking spaces in the rear portion of the property, taking access off of the alley which is open from Cedar Street. 4. Screening and Buffers None required for this application. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to convert an older, existing single family residential structure into a duplex. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5819 The City's housing inspectors currently have this structure listed in "repair" status, which is one step above "conditionally unsafe". Staff feels that it is appropriate to support this effort to rehabilitate an existing residential structure, which would have to be brought into compliance with minimum housing standards. The use of the structure as a duplex would not be out of character for this neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Three on-site parking spaces being constructed on the rear portion of this property taking access off of the alley. 2. The structure being brought into compliance with minimum housing standards. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was not present. The Committee reviewed the application and determined that allowing the conversion of this structure to a duplex was an appropriate way to ensure the rehabilitation of the structure. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, James Land, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The Commission was advised that two letters of opposition had been received. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-5820 NAME: The Anthony School - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 7700 Ohio Street OWNER/APPLICANT: The Anthony School by Kay Patton, Director PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion of the existing private school located on this R-2 zoned, 4.02 acre site. The proposed expansion includes a classroom addition and a gymnasium. A future addition will include a play room and library. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The school is located on a 4 acre tract between Ohio and Iowa Streets, two blocks west of Mississippi Avenue. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The Anthony School has existed at this location for approximately 20 years. The neighborhood is predominately single family residential, but there are other uses in the vicinity. A MF -12 zoned condominium development is located adjacent to the east. A large area of commercial zoning and uses is located one block north and east of this site, along Cantrell Road and Mississippi Avenue, respectively. With proper attention given to screening the adjacent residential properties, the school should continue to be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The school currently has 28 on-site parking spaces. Once the expansion is complete, 38 on-site parking spaces will be required. An intolerable situation now exists regarding the drop- off/pickup of students at the school. Traffic completely blocks Ohio Street and backs up to Watt Street and May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5820 Mississippi Avenue. It is imperative that the required number of on-site parking spaces be provided and some effort must be made to address the situation regarding the drop- off/pickup of students. 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 6 foot opaque screen is required to screen adjacent residential properties not already screened from this site. A landscape upgrade toward compliance with the Landscape Ordinance will be required equal to the building expansion proposed. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Dedicate right- of-way on Iowa and Ohio Streets to 25 feet from centerline. Provide in -lieu contribution for street improvements on Iowa Street. 6. Utility Comments No comments 7. Fire Department Comments Widen the driveway at the southwest corner of the site to a minimum of 18 feet. Construct an all-weather surface fire lane to access the existing buildings which will be inaccessible when the new gymnasium is constructed. An on-site fire hydrant may be required. 8. Analysis A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the phased expansion of this existing private school. The proposed expansion includes a classroom addition, gymnasium, library and playroom. The current enrollment at the school is approximately 265 students. No increase in enrollment is proposed. The classroom expansion will allow for a redistribution of the student population and will result in a lower student to teacher ratio. Staff is supportive of the proposal but believes that this is the opportunity to discuss improving two situations at the site, screening and the drop-off/pickup of students. The majority of the site currently has adequate screening to protect the adjacent residential properties, either in the form of natural vegetation or a solid wood fence. There 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5820 are areas however where the vegetation is sparse or there is no screening whatsoever. The screening should be brought up to code in those areas. Children are currently dropped off and picked up at the front entrance to the school. During these times, traffic backs up both ways on Ohio Street and extends onto Watt Street and Mississippi Avenue. If the drop-off point were moved to the west side of the building and vehicles exited the site onto Iowa Street, it would provide much more stacking space and could help alleviate the problem. The exit onto Iowa Street could be made one-way with a left and right turn lane to further expedite the flow of traffic from the school site. Iowa Street is currently substandard but is scheduled for widening in the near future. 9. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with the City Engineer and Fire Department Comments 3. The drop-off/pickup site being relocated to the west side of the property and the driveway onto Iowa Street being a one-way exit with left and right turn lanes. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Kay Patton and Frank Whitbeck were present representing The Anthony School. Staff presented the item and pointed out the City Engineer, Fire Department and Landscape Comments noted above. Ms. Patton was advised to meet with the City Engineers' staff and the Plans Review Specialist to address the engineering and landscape comments. She was further advised to contact the Fire Marshal's Office regarding the design of the fire lane. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning the current traffic problems associated with the drop-off/pickup of children at the school. It was determined that the drop-off/pickup point would be moved to the west side of the building. The driveway will be redesigned to accommodate one-way traffic entering from Ohio Street and exiting onto Iowa Street. The Iowa Street exit will 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5820 have a left turn and right turn lane. It was hoped that these changes would provide more stacking space and would allow for a more expedient flow of traffic through and off of the site. The applicant agreed to these changes and was advised to prepare a revised site plan for the full Commission. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Kay Patton, was present. There were no objectors ,present. Staff presented the :item and informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been received which addressed all staff concerns. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-5824 NAME• LOCATION: Campbell Accessory Dwelling - Conditional Use Permit 115 Midland Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Gregory and Sheryl Campbell PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of an accessory dwelling on this R-3 zoned property. The applicant proposes to construct a two-story structure containing a two car garage with a 450 square foot accessory dwelling above. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The site is located on the east side of Midland Avenue, two lots north of Markham Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This property is located at the fringe of a predominately single family residential neighborhood. Other uses in the immediate vicinity range from duplex to commercial. A large, R-3 zoned single family residential neighborhood is located north and west of this site. Several apartment buildings, zoned R-5, are adjacent to the east. A small area of C-3 zoning is located one-half block south of this site, in the Stifft's Station Area of Markham and Kavanaugh Streets. A visual inspection of the surrounding neighborhood showed that several other properties also have accessory dwellings in the form of garage apartments and freestanding dwellings located off of the alleys. The vast majority of these are nonconforming. The applicant's property is located at the edge of the single family neighborhood and abuts the property zoned R-5, Urban Residential. The proposed accessory dwelling is not out of character with similar uses in the immediate vicinity. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5824 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The single family residence and proposed accessory dwelling each require one on-site parking space. The proposed two car garage will meet the ordinance requirement. 4. Screening and Buffers None required with this application. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility Comments A late response from Arkansas Power and Light states that the two-story structure cannot be constructed as proposed due to the proximity of an existing 7,620 volt power line. Placement of the structure as indicated would not allow adequate code clearance. 7. Analysis The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of two-story structure containing a two car garage with a 450 square foot accessory dwelling above. The ordinance allows for two-story construction if the ground floor is occupied by an automobile garage. The 450 square foot accessory dwelling is within the maximum permitted floor area of 700 square feet for accessory dwellings. The property is located on the edge of the single family residential neighborhood and abuts property zoned R-5 Urban Residence. The proposed accessory dwelling is not out of character with similar uses in the immediate vicinity. The applicant has been advised to work with the Arkansas Power and Light Company's engineers to determine if it is possible to design the structure in such a manner as to comply with the required code clearance from the existing power line. If this is possible, staff is supportive of the request. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with Utility Comments. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 17 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5824 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Sheryl Campbell was present. Staff presented the item. The Committee questioned whether there was adequate parking provided. Staff responded that the two car garage satisfied the ordinance requirement. A brief discussion followed concerning the other uses in the immediate vicinity after which, the Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. NOTE: The comment from Arkansas Power and Light was received after the Subdivision Committee meeting and as such was not discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant, Sheryl Campbell, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had met with Arkansas Power and Light Company engineers. The applicant had agreed to make whatever structural modifications are necessary to comply with Arkansas Power and Light's required separation from the high voltage power line. If necessary, the building will be reduced in size and the rear wall moved further away from the rear property line in order to achieve the necessary separation. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved with a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z -3173-B NAME: LOCATION• Four Oaks Living Center - Conditional Use Permit 2500 John Barrow Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Joe Gribble/Joe White PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 140 bed nursing home on this 4.75 acre site. The Little Rock Planning Commission, at its April 5, 1994 meeting, approved the rezoning of this site from MF -12 to MF -18. The rezoning request will be heard by the Board of Directors at its May 3, 1994 meeting. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location The proposed nursing home site is located on the west side of John Barrow Road, just south of Tanya Drive. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed nursing home is located in an area of varied uses and zoning. The zoning in the immediate vicinity ranges from R-2 to MF -24 and 0-3. The adjoining property to the north is zoned R-4 and occupied by several duplexes. The property adjacent to the west and south is currently vacant and zoned MF -12. More areas of multifamily zoning extend further north and south of the site. Parkview High School occupies a large tract directly across John Barrow Road to the east. With attention given to screening the adjacent residential properties, this proposed use should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking A 140 bed nursing home requires 140 on-site parking spaces. The site plan, as submitted, shows 138 on-site parking spaces. The lighting for the parking lot and driveways must be low-level and directional, aimed away from adjacent residential properties. May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 18 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3173-B 4. Screening and Buffers Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 6 foot opaque screen is required to screen adjacent residential properties. Show dumpster location and required screening. 5. City Engineer Comments Detention and Excavation Ordinances apply. Dedicate right- of-way on John Barrow Road to 45 feet from centerline. 6. Utility Comments Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main extension is required with easements. Capacity contribution analysis required. On-site fire protection is required. Arkansas Power and Light requires a 15 foot easement along all four property lines. 7. Analysis The applicant proposes to construct a 140 bed nursing home on property that is currently under consideration for rezoning to MF -18. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon the Board of Directors approving the requested rezoning. With attention given to screening the residential properties, the proposed nursing appears to be compatible with the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of this application subject to: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. 2. Compliance with City Engineer and Utility Comments SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and outlined the comments noted above. It was determined that the right-of-way way dedication would be handled through the plat associated with this item (S-1018). �A May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 18 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -3173-B The applicant was instructed to provide details on the dumpster location and screening, proposed signage, and the type and location of parking/driveway lighting. The applicant questioned the necessity of requiring screening on the west and south perimeter of the site since this adjacent property is also owned by the applicant and is to be developed as associated elderly housing. He was advised that the nursing home site was to be on a separate lot and as such the full landscape and screening standards are required. The applicant then questioned the necessity of having to provide 140 on-site parking spaces. He stated that the proposed use would only require approximately 60 parking spaces. He was advised to provide documentation to substantiate that contention if he wished to request a variance from the ordinance requirement. The item was then forwarded to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicants, Joe Gribble and Joe White, were present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting a variance from the required number of parking spaces. The applicant had submitted documentation to support his request to have only 100 on-site parking spaces rather than the ordinance requirement of 140. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance. As a part of the Consent Agenda, this item was approved as recommended by staff, including the requested variance to allow 100 parking spaces. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 I May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 19 Z -5484-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: New Direction Baptist Church Arthur Gamble 2815 West 15th Rezone from I-2 to 0-3 Church 0.16 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Industrial, zoned I-2 South - Auto repair, zoned I-2 East - Industrial, zoned I-2 West - Vacant, zoned 0-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The lot in question is zoned I-2, and the proposal is to utilize the property for a church. A reclassification is necessary because I-2 does not permit churches. 0-3 was suggested because of the location and the existing zoning pattern. (In 1991 the two lots to the west were rezoned to 0-3 by the same church, and the plan is to use all three for the development.) The site is a 50 foot residential lot with a depth of 140 foot. The parcel is vacant. Zoning in the area in typical of a central city neighborhood and includes R-3, R-4, R-5, 0-3, C-3, I-2 and I-3. All of the industrial zoning is located east of Woodrow, on both sides of the railroad trucks. To the west of Woodrow, the zoning is primarily R-3 or R-4. In addition to the adjoining 0-3 lots, there is also some 0-3 at the intersection of West 14th and Woodrow, one block to the north. Land use is a combination of residential, commercial and industrial, with a majority of the nonresidential uses located east of Woodrow. There are some vacant lots and abandoned structures found throughout the neighborhood. As with other core neighborhoods, the land use in the general vicinity does not necessarily conform to the zoning. At the southeast corner of West 17th and Booker, there is a C-3 parcel with a single family residence on it. The same May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 19 Z -5484-A _(Cont. pattern is found at West 16th and Woodrow, except the lots are zoned I-2. Staff views the proposed rezoning as a positive step for the neighborhood and supports the 0-3 request. The proposal, construction of a church, will utilize a total of three vacant lots which can be nuisance for an area. Any attempt to redevelop property in the Stephens School neighborhood should be strongly encouraged and endorsed whenever it is feasible. The Stephens School plan reinforces the existing zoning east of Woodrow and shows the property as part of a large industrial area. However, an 0-3 reclassification should not have any impact on the plan's goal or direction for the neighborhood. 0-3 provides a good transition from the I-2 area to the residential lots to the west. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT This site is located in the I-630 District. The adopted plan recommends industrial for the site. Due to the existing land use and zoning patterns, staff believes uses other than industrial should be considered for the area. Although there is a major rail track immediately to the east, single family homes exist immediately across Woodrow to the west and along 14th Street to the north. Neither of these streets have a large width and thus they do not provide a physical barrier. Staff would suggest extending the mixed use designation south to include this site. By making this change the mixed use area would provide a buffer and transition from industrial use immediately along to rail track to single family to the west. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 0-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. 2 May 3, 1994 ITEM NO.: 19 Z -5484-A (Cont.) As part of the Consent Agenda, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the 0-3 rezoning. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 3 w F- 0 WE II U) m F— z W UD COQ 0 W Q Z i w Q \z, ® J LL W q I� W Z Q Z = �-- J_ cr— W Z W W = Q CWLLIO �rT- �' sv z C) Q "7 mm�Wm J O= CC W m Q CL W =- U w Lij Z Q 0 Cf) C CO Z C' 0 � c- W � m U -� UCC Z O >-- S a O Q WE II U) m F— z W UD COQ 0 W Q Z i w Q W I� �' sv Q s W 2 ~ Z 7- Z W W Z Z -J U W LU C) o Lu Lu z0 LLJ z Z LU CO d 2 J z�� O `� Clj m 0= CC w m a Q cr� w w w Z Y g 0 z_cs=c1z0000o->w zON1 W-�UJo=C/) m U � : ZE 0 a- U) WE II U) m F— z W UD COQ 0 W Q Z i w Q May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Date Chairman