Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_12 12 1995subI. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD DECEMBER 12, 1995 9:00 A.M. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten in number. Approval of the Minutes of the October 31, 1995 meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Ramsay Ball, Interim Chairman Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Doyle Daniel Pam Adcock Larry Lichty Herb Hawn Diane Chachere Sissi Brandon Mizan Rahman :•4 0M Steve Giles 7 December 12, 1995 LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. E. R. C. Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S -283-G) B. T. H. J. R. Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1080) C. Kaufman Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1081) D. T. H. J. R. Addition, Lot 1 -- Short -Form PD -C (Z -5258-B) E. Bowman Road -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -5756-B) F. Piedmont Office Park -- Short -Form PD -O (Z-6060) F-1 Goodwin 301 E. Roosevelt -- Short -Form PCD (Z -6063-A) G. Z -4175-C (3000 -Black of Aldersgate Rd.) -- Rezoning from R-2 to 0-3 H. Z-6016 (4411 Baseline Rd.) -- Rezoning from R-2 to C-3 II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. River Club Addition, Lot 2R and Lots 3-21 -- Preliminary Plat (S -410-B) 2. Westrock Office Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S -801-A) 3. Apple Blossom Subdivision -- Preliminary Plat (S -1010-A) 4. Boen Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S-1085) 5. Pomona Addition, Lots A, B, C, & D -- Preliminary Plat (S-1086) 5-a. Medical Plaza West Addition -- Preliminary Plat (S -142-A) 5-b. The Ranch, Tract "B" -- Preliminary Plat (S -285-X) Agenda, Page 2 III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 6. Cambridge Place Addition, Lots 10-13 -- Amended Planned Development -Office (Z -2390-C) 7. Dean's -- Short -Form POD (Z -4859-C) 8. Seven Acres Business Park -- Amended Long -Form POD (Z -5038-B) 9. Appletree Commercial Subdivision, Lot 1 -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -5787-A) 10. Reservoir Flat Addition -- Short -Form PD -R (Z -5845-A) 11. Global Learning Community Services Center, Inc. -- Short-Form POD (Z-6062) 12. Central High School Museum -- Short -Form POD (Z-6080) V. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 13. Medical Plaza West -- Subdivision Site Plan Review (Z -3597-A) 14. Saddle Creek Center -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -4343-I) 15. Boen Addition, Lot 1 -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -4662-A) 16. Boen Addition, Lot 2 -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -4662-B) IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 17. Myer's -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-3478-8) 18. Alert Center -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6072) 19 Stearn's -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6075) 20. Walnut Valley Christian Academy -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6079) 2 Agenda, Page 3 VI. REZONING• 21. Z -3592-H (located west of the Koger Office Park and East of S Bowman Rd.) -- Re -zoning from MF -12 to 0-3 and from MF -12 and 0-1 to 0-1. 22. Z-6068 (located at 1006 W. 34th. St.) -- Re -zoning from R-4 to C-1. VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS: 23. G-23-243 (located adjacent to 500 E. Markham St.) -- Alley Abandonment 24. G-23-244 (located at E. 9th. St. at J. L. Hawkins St.) -- Right -Of -Way Abandonment 25. G-23-245 (Riverfront Dr.) -- Right -Of -Way Abandonment 3 1 ) December 1,., 1995 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -283-G NAME: E. R. C. SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1 & 2 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: South of the present end of Aldersgate Rd., approximately 1 mile south of Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: Jack Moore ERC FOUNDATION, INC. 2701 Aldersgate Rd. Little Rock, AR 72205 224-7200 AREA: 6.362 ACRES ZONING• O-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: ENGINEER• Michael H. Johnston THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 500 PROPOSED USES: 0-3 (General Office) Uses & Nursing Home 1) Approval of a deferral of the requirement to dedicate right-of-way and construct Master Street Plan improvements for Aldersgate Rd. along the Lot 2 boundary of the subdivision. 2) Approval of a temporary cul-de-sac at the southern boundary of Lot 1, at the proposed temporary southern end of the Aldersgate Rd. improvements. STAFF UPDATE: There were "fatal,, deficiencies in the submittal which were noted in the staff report for the October 31, 1995 Planning Commission hearing: 1) the proposed re -alignment of Aldersgate Rd. requires concurrence from the property owner abutting the currently approved Master Street Plan alignment of Aldersgate Rd.; and, 2) the area of the proposed subdivision was not inclusive of all the unplatted property from which the proposed subdivision was to be subdivided. There were a number of other deficiencies noted, as well. In light of the requirements cited, the applicant sought and was granted by the Commission a deferral of the hearing of this proposal until the December 12, 1995 Commission agenda; however, December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -283-G during the intervening time period, the applicant has submitted no revised drawings addressing the deficiencies, and has initiated no communication with staff to indicate a proposed means of or a time frame for dealing with the deficiencies. Staff, therefore, recommends that the item be withdrawn from further consideration, without prejudice, and require that, if the applicant wishes to pursue the matter further, a new application be required to be submitted. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a two -lot subdivision of a 6.362 acre tract, and the extension of Aldersgate Rd. from its present termination at the Good Shepherd Ecumenical Retirement Center facility, approximately 500 feet southward to serve the subdivision. (The proposed alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to serve the subdivision is a change in alignment from that previously approved and established in 1987.) Lot 1, the northern -most lot, is 0.778 acres in size and no specific use for the lot is established at this time. Lot 2, to the south of Lot 1, is a 4.873 acre lot, and is being platted for the development of a nursing home. Aldersgate Rd. is to be extended from its present termination, southward to the southern boundary of Lot 1. A deferral of the requirement to dedice right-of-way and to provide street and sidewalk improvements along the Lot 2 boundary of the subdivision is requested. A temporary cul-de-sac, offset to the east, is proposed to provide a turn -around at the temporary southern end of Aldersgate Rd. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and approval of a cul-de-sac at the temporary dead-end of Aldersgate Rd. is requested. Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval for a deferral of Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements along the eastern and southern boundary of Lot 2 is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded with a thick stand of pine and hardwood trees on the site. The northern boundary of the site lies approximately 250 feet south of the present end of street improvements on Aldersgate Rd. There is a knoll at the center of the tract which rises approximately 15 feet from the perimeter of the subdivision. Camp Aldersgate abuts the site to the north, with the 1987 approved 2 December 1,., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-283-G alignment of the Aldersgate Rd. extension lying between the Camp Aldersgate property and the subdivision tract. The site is presently zoned MF -12, with the MF -12 zoning district extending to the abutting lands to the east, west, and south. The Camp Aldersgate area to the north is zoned OS. The Ecumenical Retirement Center property to the north is zoned MF -18. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The proposed re -alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to its intersection with Shackleford Rd. must to be shown on the preliminary plat. Camp Aldersgate will need to approve the relocation of the alignment. Dedication of street right-of-way adjacent to Lot 2 is required. The curvature of the proposed alignment along the southern boundary of Lot 2 does not meet the Master Street Plan minimum curvature for a commercial street of 450 foot minimum radius. The length of planned improvements of Aldersgate Rd. must be extended to provide access for Lot 2, and must be constructed to allow a turning movement for "SU" (garbage truck) vehicles. The one-half cul-de-sac shown on the drawing will not satisfy this requirement. The cost to construct the remaining portion of the collector adjacent to Lot 2 must be guaranteed in order to final plat the lot. Sidewalks will be required to be constructed on both sides of the Aldersgate Rd. extension. PAGIS monuments will be required. A stormwater detention analysis will be required on each lot at the time building permits are issued. Water Works comments that, in addition to the normal connection charges, a pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00 per foot along the 1211 water main applies. On-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with an easement, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal. 9 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -283-G Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-2 defines a subdivision as all divisions of land into one or more lots, including those involving the need for new access. The proposed subdivision is part of a larger tract, and this larger tract must be included in the preliminary plat. (The area outside the scope of the two lots which are shown may be designated as a tract for future development; however, the alignment of Aldersgate Rd. to its intersection with Shackleford Rd. must be shown.) Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished: a) the proposed type of subdivision be noted; b) the source of title, giving deed record book and page number or instrument number, be furnished; and, c) the source of water supply and the proposed means of wastewater disposal be indicated. Sec. 31-89 requires that street construction, including the location of sidewalks, be shown on the preliminary plat. The plat shows the extension of the right-of-way, and notes the location of existing half street improvements, but does not show the required street improvements. Sec. 31-231 requires each lot abut a public street, or, when approved by the Planning Commission, a private street. Lot 2 is not shown to have frontage on a street, as required by the Ordinance provisions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in additon to the information shown on the plat: a) the minimum front yard setback line be shown; b) a preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating proposed easement dimensions and a typical ditch section, be shown; c) the names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision be shown, and that the names of recorded subdivision abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number, be shown; d) the size of all monuments be indicated, not just the type of material of monuments; e) the zoning classification of abutting areas be shown, not just the zoning classification of the area within the proposed subdivision; f) the certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy contain the certification that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years (Sec. 31-91 provides the verbiage 9 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -283-G for this certification.); and, g) proposed PAGIS monuments be located. E. ANALYSIS• There are deficiencies in the submittal which do not permit review by the Planning Commission at this time. Either, a) the entire tract from which the two lots are being extracted must be included; and b) the alignment of Aldersgate Rd. westward to Shackleford Rd. must be provided for, or a waiver of these requirements must be sought. There are numerous deficiencies in the documents submitted, as cited above, which must be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the item until the deficiencies are addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant asking that review of the item be deferred until the Subdivision Committee meeting of November 22, 1995. There was, then, no discussion of the item, other than an explanation by staff of the nature of the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated December 11, 1995, asking that the hearing of this item be deferred until the Commission meeting of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral; however, staff noted that, since the Commission Bylaws provide that requests for deferral must be made by the applicant at least 5 working days prior to the Commission hearing, and, since the applicant submitted the request on Monday prior to the Tuesday hearing, a waiver of the Commission Bylaws is needed. Staff recommends approval of the Bylaws waiver. A motion was made and seconded to approve a 5 a � December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: 5-283-G waiver of the Commission Bylaws to permit consideration of a deferral without the request being made at least 5 days prior to the Commission meeting, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 0 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-1080 NAME: T. H. J. R. ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the north side of W. Markham St., approximately 0.2 mile east of the Chenal Parkway intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Jim Irwin Joe White THE IRWIN CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 10800 Financial Center Parkway 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 225-5700 374-1666 AREA: 3.1311 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE: Following the submission of the proposed preliminary plat, the applicant discovered that, instead of a 48" Water Utilities easement along the 39" raw water line which bisects the property, that Water Utilities has a 50 foot right-of-way across the property. This necessitated a complete re -design of the lot layout, and resulted in the applicant seeking, and being granted, a deferral of the hearing of the preliminary plat issue until the December 12, 1995 Commission hearing. The revised preliminary plat has three, instead of the originally proposed two, lots; two lots (Lots 2 and 3) along the W. Markham St. frontage of the land, and one lot (Lot 1) in the triangular area at the north corner of the property. This lot, Lot 1, has no frontage on a public street, and access to this lot is proposed to be provided by private common access easements across Lots 2 and 3. Sec. 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 of the Regulations requires that, where a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use December 1�, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1080 of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The Regulations require that the location of the private service easements be indicated on the plat and the drive to be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall, requires the Regulations, be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Section 210 of the Regulations states that commercial subdivisions abutting arterial streets are to be limited to one access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage, and that shared or common driveways are encouraged on lots with less than 300 feet of frontage. Any variance from the design standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. The Public Works review of the revised preliminary plat notes that the two lots fronting on W. Markham St. are each less than 300 feet in width, and, consequently, the two entry drives, one each along the east and west boundaries of the tract, must be combined into one central common drive. The entry drive must, according to the Regulations, meet minimum commercial street standards, with a cul-de-sac, or other approved turn -around, within the easement, and must have a sidewalk along both sides of the drive. The minimum width of the drive at the entry must, states Public Works, be 36 feet to allow for left turn capability. The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a private access easement to provide the required access to Lot 1. The applicant has, however, requested a variance from the requirement that the improvements in the access easements be constructed to commercial street standards, to permit the drive to be 25 feet in width, to have no sidewalks, and to have no cul-de-sac. Also, the applicant requests that the subdivision not be limited to the one central access point, but be permitted to have two access points at the east and west boundaries of the plat area. The applicant requests a deferral of the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements along the W. Markham St. frontage of the subdivision until Lots 2 or 3 are developed. The Planning staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and of a private access easement for access to Lot 1. The Public Works staff recommends denial of the variance from the requirement that the improvements in the access easement meet City street standards, and recommends that the drive be constructed to 27 feet in width, with a sidewalk along both sides of the street, and that a turn -around device be constructed within the access easement at the north end of the street. At the intersection of the private commercial street with W. Markham St., the drive should be constructed to 36 feet in width to permit a center left -turn lane. 2 December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1080 STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 2 -lot subdivision of a 3.1311 acre tract. One of the lots is a 0.80 acre site; the other, the remaining 2.3311 acres of the tract. Both lots have frontage on W. Markham St.; however, a single central common access drive is proposed for access to the subdivision. No street improvements are anticipated with this plat, and no variances are requested. tm IM Lem PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is, predominantly, heavily wooded. There is a cleared strip along the west property line which is an 80 foot wide Arkansas Power and Light Co. utility easement, and a cleared strip running east and west approximately 125 feet to the north of the W. Markham St. right-of-way, at the north line of Lot 1, which is a Water Utility easement. The existing zoning of the tract is C-3. This zoning district includes abutting land to the west, and extends southward across W. Markham St. To the east and north, is R-2 zoned land. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: On the preliminary plat, provide the base flood elevation and the proposed minimum floor elevations of structures to be constructed on the property. This must be provided before the applicant obtains an "SFHA" development permit. Water courses entering the tract and the planned exit points for drainage are to be shown. Rights-of-way for drainage courses leaving the site must be dedicated. A stormwater detention analysis is required. West Markham St. is a minor arterial, and the right-of- way and the width of pavement for W. Markham St. must conform to Master Street Plan requirements. A sidewalk will be required along the W. Markham St. frontage of the lots. 3 December 1�, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1080 Construct the common access drive to commercial street standards (36 feet of street width, plus sidewalks on each side of the street.) Water Works comments that Water Works owns a right-of-way which includes the land 20 feet north of and 30 feet south of the 39" raw water main. Water Works will have to approve any construction in the right-of-way, and no building will be allowed in this area. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the W. Markham St. frontage of the subdivision and a 15 foot easement along the north side of the 391° raw water line easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished: a) the type of subdivision is to be denoted; b) the name and address of the owner of record, and the source of title, are to be shown; and, c) the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal are to be indicated. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data for all watercourses leaving the plat boundary, is to be provided; b) the names of all recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number, and the names of owners of all land abutting the plat area are to be shown; c) "accurate and adequate,, descriptions of all monuments is to be provided, showing the size and type of material of all monuments; d) the zoning classifications of the area of the proposed subdivision, as well as of abutting land, are to be shown; and, e) proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be executed. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on minor arterial roadways, shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage, 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1080 The applicant has provided for this shared access easement. The Traffic Engineer has commented that the drive in this access easement is to be built to a 36 foot wide commecial street standard, with a sidewlk on each side of the drive. The common access easement shown on the plat is 25 feet in width. With the Public Works comment that this access drive is to be a 36 foot wide street, with sidewalks on both sides, the access easement needs to be adjusted, or a variance from the Public Works requirement needs to be sought. The plat fails to show the 50 foot wide Water Utility right- of-way which runs east and west across the tract. E. ANALYSIS• Nearly all of the deficiencies in the submittal which have been noted are easily remedied, and are minor in scope. The matter of the Water Utility right-of-way not being shown, however, affects the buildable area of, especially, Lot 1, and could mandate a change in the lot layout. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of the hearing of the preliminary plat approval pending the applicant amending the plat to reflect the Water Utility right-of-way, and any change in the lot layout made necessary by the presence of this right-of-way. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had asked that the hearing of the item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. There was, then, no discussion of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1080 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant and the Public Works staff had resolved the Public Works concerns noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the agenda "write-up"; that a central common access drive had replaced the two access points, as were shown on the submitted drawing. Staff reported that the Ordinance provides that, when a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of a Public Street. The applicant, noted staff, requested such an easement. Staff reported that the design of the street, with a sidewalk along one side of the drive, meets with Public Works requirements, and staff recommends approval of the service easement, subject to the turn -around device at the north end of the drive meeting the Public Works specifications. The item was proposed to be included on the Consent Agenda for approval; however, Commissioner Daniel indicated that he understood that the plan had been "drastically" changed from the plan presented at Subdivision Committee meeting, and asked that the item be deferred until he had a chance to review the revised plan. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, explained that, in the original "write-up", the Public Works staff had expressed a concern about the circular drive effect of the internal private access drive, with its two access points off W. Markham St., and had suggested a single, central access point and private drive, with a turn -around device at its north end. This, he said, would be in conformance with the Ordinance provisions which provides for common access drives for access to multiple lots, where lots have less than 300 feet of frontage on a public street. He indicated that the applicant had complied with this design requirement, and would provide a single 36 foot wide private street running north off W. Markham St. between the two lots fronting on W. Markham St., with a ''T" at the north end to provide access to the interior lot. Public Works, he said, had agreed to permit the construction of the private street with a sidewalk along one side of the street, only, in lieu of requiring a sidewalk along both sides of the street, due to the short length of the street and the limited number of lots being served by the street. He added that this would not preclude a developer from adding the sidewalk along the other side of the street, if it is desirable when the lot is developed. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson suggested that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular R December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1080 Agenda, to permit the applicant to present the revised plan to the Commission. Mr. Jim VonTunglen, representing the applicant, explained that the original request for a deferral had been brought about due to the title company's not discovering the existence of a 50 foot wide "fee simple" right-of-way across the property which is owned by the Water Utility Commission, necessitating a redesign of the site. He explained that, with the re -design, the property owner had attempted to coordinate with the developer of the property to the west for a common access drive, so that the subject property could have two access points and retain the circular drive effect. This, however, had not been able to be worked out. To get the item before the Commission, then, the property owner had agreed to comply with the Public works requirement for a single access point, with a 36 foot wide private street. He related that the property owner felt that this was too wide of a street, and that the loss of the circular drive would not proved as good a traffic flow through the property, but that, to avoid further opposition from Public Works, the property owner had decided to comply with the Public Works requirements. He said that the required sidewalk would be a 5 foot walk, as required by Public Works, and that the depth of the turn -around would be adjusted to comply with Public Works. Interim Chairperson Ball noted that he would need to abstain on any vote concerning the subject item, and would defer to Interim Vice -Chairperson Chachere to chair the meeting for the hearing of the subject item. Interim Vice -Chairperson Chachere confirmed that there was no further discussion, and called the question. The item was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Ball), and 1 absent. VA 1 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: 5-1081 NAME: KAUFMAN ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of W. 7th. St. and S. Jones St. DEVELOPER• KAUFMAN LUMBER CO. 5100 Asher Ave. Little Rock, AR 72204 568-3182 AREA• 5.5 ACRES ZONING: I-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT• 14 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 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: Lumber Yard 1) Approval of a waiver of right-of-way dedication on W. 7th. St. and for the Mid -Town Expressway. 2) Approval of a waiver of street improvements on Jones St. 3) Approval of a waiver of sidewalk requirements on W. 7th. St. and on Jones St. 4) Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide on-site stormwater detention. 5) Approval of a variance from the building setback requirements for front, rear, and rear yard regulations. 6) Approval of an access easement across Lot 2 for access to Lot 1. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is the subdivision of the 5.5 acre site which, in the past, was a building materials sales business, with outside storage, and a millwork fabrication shop. The division is sought in order to create a two -lot subdivision, so that the rear, southern -most, lot can be divided from the remainder of the property for sale to and use by another lumber yard operation. The existing lumber sheds are to be used for lumber storage. December 1e., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1081 Access to the southern -most lot is to be by way of an access easement across the northern -most lot. The location of this easement coinsides with the existing access drive which currently serves the single site and which provides access to the interior of the site. Off-site improvements to streets are not planned, and waivers are requested from the requirement to: a) dedicate additional right-of-way along the W. 7th. St. frontage of the property and to dedicate right-of-way for the Mid -Town Express- way; b) make half -street improvements along the Jones St. boundary of the site; c) provide sidewalks along W. 7th. St. and Jones St.; and d) provide on-site stormwater detention. A variance from the front, rear, and side building setback regulations is requested to permit the existing buildings to remain in their present location. Approval of an access easement is requested to provide access to Lot 1 across Lot 2. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: Review and approval of a preliminary plat by the Planning Commission is requested. Review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for waivers from the requirement to: a) dedicate additional right-of-way along the W. 7th. St. frontage of the property and for the Mid -Town Expressway; b) make half -street improvements along the Jones St. boundary of the subdivision; c) provide sidewalks along W. 7th. St. and Jones St.; and d) provide on-site stormwater detention. Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for variances from the building setback requirements for the front, rear, and side building line regulations in order for the existing buildings to remain in their current location. Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for access to Lot 1 to be by way of an access easement across Lot 2. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a developed property, but it is not, for the most part, being used at this time. It was the Monarch Mills site, which is no longer in operation at the location. The existing zoning of the tract is I-2. The I-2 district extends eastward and southward to the abutting railroad and I-630 properties. To the north is an I-2 corner to the northwest and R-2 property to the northeast. Across Jones St. to the west is C-3, R-3, R-4, and R-5 property. E December 1.4,)1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1081 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works Staff comments: The site is in the floodplain, and is adjacent to the floodway; a SFHA development permit is required. The base flood elevations should be identified on the plat. All proposed structures, and those where significant improvements are proposed, must meet minimum finish floor elevation or requirements for flood proofing. All permits and a grading permit should be completed before work begins. The Mid -Town Expressway, as provided for in the Master Street Plan, has a 200 foot right-of-way requirement. Dedicate the required right-of-way, or seek a wavier. Seventh St. is a collector. Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way, with a 20 foot radial dedication at the corner, or seek a waiver. Jones St. is substandard and street improvements will be required. Provide half street improvements, or seek a waiver. Sidewalks, with ramps according to Ordinance, are required on both streets. Expansion of facilities on the new lots will require the stormwater detention analysis. Water Works comments that the Fire Department needs to evaluate the site to determine whether additional fire protection will be required. If there are any modifications to the fire protection system, installation of a back flow preventer will be required. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with an easement, will be required for service to Lot 2. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement around the entire perimeter of the subdivision, and a 15 foot easement from the east property line to and along the north face of the southern -most warehouse building. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. Kl December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1081 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished: a) the proposed type of subdivision is to be indicated; b) the address, as well as the name, of the owner of record, and the source of title, are to be provided; c) the lot sizes are to be shown; and, d) the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal are to be indicated. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) the names of all recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number, and the names of owners of all land abutting the proposed plat area, are to be shown; b) all bearings and distances for all boundary lines, with ties to all corners of record are to be shown; c) sufficient curve data is to be provided to adequately describe curves, with the minimum information being the radius, arc distance, delta angle, and chord bearing and distance; d) where boundary lines are common with previously platted properties, record bearings and distances shall be shown; e) accurate and adequate description of all monuments are to be noted, showing the size and type of material of the monuments; f) the zoning classifications of the tract of and of all abutting land is to be shown; and, g) proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be executed. Sec. 36-320 requires, for I-2 zoning districts, a front building setback of 50 feet; a rear yard of 25 feet; and, a side yard of 15 feet. The existing buildings are already closer to W. 7th. St. than 50 feet, and, when the property is divided, an existing warehouse building will have a lot line bisecting the building. Rear and side yard line requirements will not be met once the new lot line is platted. The Planning Commission needs to approval variances to the setback regulations, so that the existing buildings will not be non -conforming structures. An access easement needs to be platted to extend along the Lot 1 -Lot 2 line so that landscaping requirements will not be imposed along the lot line. The Building Codes staff needs to review the proposed subdivision and approve the means to be taken to meet the Fire Prevention Code where the warehouse building straddles the lot line. 4 December 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1081 E. ANALYSIS• There are several deficiencies in the submittal, as cited above, which need to be addressed. Approval of the preliminary plat should be conditioned upon these deficiencies being remedied. Each of the two lots has required frontage on a public street. Because of the desire to use the existing drive entrance to the property off W. 7th. St., an access easement across Lot 2 is requested. No access to Lot 1 from its boundary street, Jones St., is proposed. Because no construction is proposed at this time, and because the buildings and access are already established, it is requested that no off-site improvements be imposed with this subdivision. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, conditioned on approval of the requested waivers and variance, or meeting the ordinance requirements in these areas. Staff recommends approval of waiver request for dedication of right-of-way on W. 7th. St. and for the Mid -Town Expressway. Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for half street improvements on Jones St. Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for sidewalks on W. 7th. St. and on Jones St. Staff recommends denial of the waiver request for on-site stormwater detention, noting that this requirement would only be imposed if new building or parking lot construction is instituted. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the building setback requirements for front, rear, and rear yard regulations, in order for the existing buildings to remain in their current locations. Staff recommends approval of an access easement across Lot 2 for access to Lot 1. 5 i December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1081 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee the applicant's proposal. Staff and the Committee members reviewed with Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White confirmed that all needed information would be furnished and all deficiencies would be remedied. The various waivers and the variances were discussed, and Mr. White responded that he would be conferring with Traffic Engineering on the various concerns. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however, that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on Monday, October 30th., one (1) working day prior to the hearing. A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to be approved by the Commission. A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5) working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral was approved in the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the hearing of this item be deferred until the Commission meeting of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 5-1 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z -5258-B NAME: T. H. J. R. ADDITION, LOT 1 -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the north side of W. Markham St., approximately 0.2 mile east of the Chenal Parkway intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jim Irwin Joe White THE IRWIN CO. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 10800 Financial Center Parkway 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 225-5700 374-1666 AREA: 0.80 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STAFF UPDATE: Following the submission of the proposed PCD site plan, the applicant discovered that, instead of a 48" Water Utilities easement along the 39" raw water line which lay at the north lot line of Lot 1, that Water Utilities has a 50 foot right-of-way across the property, with 30 feet of the right-of-way lying on Lot 1. This necessitated a complete re -design of the subdivision, including the location of the lot within the subdivision on which the PCD site was to be located. The applicant sought, and was granted, a deferral of the hearing of the PCD issue until the December 12, 1995 Commission hearing. The revised PCD site plan locates the PCD lot, instead of south of the Water Utilities right-of-way, to north of this right-of- way, in the north triangular portion of the lot. This lot, Lot 1, has no frontage on a public street, and access to this lot is proposed to be provided by private common access easements across Lots 2 and 3. Approval of the access easements, and any variances associated with the proposed design, are to be addressed as part of the preliminary plat approval. (See Item "B" of this agenda.) Depending on whether the requested variances are granted or not, the drive layout may or may not be approved. If the applicant must comply with the requirement that December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5258-B a central common private street, built to City commercial street standards, with a turn -around device within the access easement, the PCD site plan will have to be changed to accommodate these requirements. The Planning staff recommends approval of the PCD. The Public Works staff recommends, as part of the preliminary plat approval, denial of the variance from the requirement that the improvements in the access easement meet City street standards, and recommends that the drive be constructed to 27 feet in width, with a sidewalk along both sides of the street, and that a turn -around device be constructed within the access easement at the north end of the street on or abutting Lot 1. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a Planned Development -Commercial on Lot 1 of the T. H. J. R. Addition. Development is to involve construction of a 7,553 square foot, single -story building, and parking spaces for 13 vehicles. Access to the site is from a common access drive which is to be shared with future development on Lot 2. An "ABRA Auto Body and Glass" facility is the proposed use. Alternatively, the applicant seeks approval of all uses by right listed in the list of permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district. The applicant explains that, although auto body and glass shops are normally restricted to C-4 zoning districts, due to modern technology and the applicant's desire to create an "upscale marketing image", the proposed facility will resemble and will operate as a typical C-3 use. State -of -the art equipment and processes will be used. The applicant points out that, with the Water Utility easement along the north lot line and the Arkansas Power and Light Co. easement along the west lot line, use of the lot is limited to uses which can utilize a shallow lot with a wide frontage. The proposed use, states the applicant, meets this criterion. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review of a planned development to requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: and a recommendation of approval the Board of Directors is The site is undeveloped and is mostly wooded. There is a cleared area along both the west and north boundaries of the lot, with an Arkansas Power and Light Co. easement lying 2 l December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5258-B along the west property line and a Water Utility right-of- way lying along the north property line. The site is zoned C-3, and it is part of a larger C-3 tract. All abutting property, including property across W. Markham St., is zoned C-3 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works Staff comments: The requirements of the Preliminary Plat, as cited in Item 3 of this agenda, are applicable to the planned development. The access drive, located on the abutting lot, must be constructed to commercial street standards, with a 36 foot wide street section and with sidewalks on each side of the street. West Markham St. is classified as a minor arterial. The right-of-way and proposed street widening appear to conform to the Master Street Plan standards. A sidewalk will be required on the Markham St. frontage of the site. The traffic lane at the west side of the building, scaled at 17 feet, needs to be widened to 20 feet. Remove the "S" entrance from the parking lot to the common drive; it is too close to Markham St. Widen the north entrance to 27 feet. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Water Works comments that Water Works owns a right-of-way which includes the land 30 feet south of the 39" raw water main. Water Works will have to approve any construction in the right-of-way, and no building will be allowed in this area. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the W. Markham St. frontage of the site, and a 15 foot easement along the north side of the 39" raw water line easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. 3 December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5258-B The Fire Department commented that the island in the parking area on the west side of the building should be shortened to leave a clearance of 20 feet minimum in the drive. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: A general schematic landscaping plan is required. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on minor arterial roadways, shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage. The applicant has provided for this shared access easement. The Traffic Engineer has commented that the drive in this access easement is to be built to a 36 foot wide commecial street standard, with a sidewlk on each side of the drive. The common access easement shown on the plat is 25 feet in width. With the Public Works comment that this access drive is to be a 36 foot wide street, with sidewalks on both sides, the access easement needs to be adjusted, or a variance from the Public Works requirement needs to be sought. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist notes that: a) A portion of the proposed on-site buffer along Markham St. drops below the minimum requirement at any given point of 6 feet. The full average street buffer width required is 22 feet, or 15 feet minimum with permitted transfer. b) Areas set aside for building and interior landscaping appear to meet the Landscape Ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter, or another approved border, will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. E. ANALYSIS: The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned Development is located in the Chenal District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends commercial uses. There is, then, no land use issue. The plan submitted failed to show the Water Utility right- of-way along the north boundary of the lot, and this right- of-way will have a significant impact on the building design and buildable area of the lot. 4 i December 1�., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5258-B Traffic Engineering have some requirements which need to be resolved. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the hearing on the planned development be deferred until the effect of the Water Utility right-of- way is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had asked that the hearing of the item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. There was, then, no discussion of the item. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was included on the Consent Agenda, and the deferral was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the agenda "write-up". Staff reported that the preliminary plat for the subdivision of which the planned development is one lot, is being considered as Item B in the agenda, and its approval must be addressed as a condition of approved of the requested PD -C. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the PD -C was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Ball), and 1 absent, subject to the preliminary plat being approved. 5 December 1&, 1995 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z -5756-B NAME: BOWMAN ROAD -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: John A. Rees Pat McGetrick REES DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 12115 Hinson Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9298 223-9900 AREA: 2.33 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: C-1 permitted uses; video store; & C-1 Conditional Use for an eating place without drive-in service PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated. STAFF UPDATE: The Planning Commission considered the PCD request at the September 19, 1995 Commission hearing, and the vote to recommend approval of the PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention, and 1 open position. The applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors, and at the Board meeting of November 7, 1995, presented a proposal for a revised PCD site plan and a change in the proposed uses. The Board referred the amended proposal to the Commission for a re -hearing of the item, with the proposed changes to be discussed. The applicant proposed to the Board of Directors to: 1) eliminate the proposed restaurant use; 2) set the rear buffer width at 10 feet and terrace the rear retaining wall; 3) eliminate the drive -around behind the south building, but provide partial drive-arounds behind both buildings; 4) relocate the southern dumpster away from the rear/east property line; and, 5) dedicate the required right -o -way along Bowman Rd. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B The applicant has, however, indicated to staff that further modifications will be proposed; that the PCD site plan which was approved in 1994 will be presented for review, with the only change being in the size of the building area. (The approved PCD site plan has a 9,000 square foot, single -story building at the southern end of the property and a two-story building at the north end of the property which has 7,125 square feet on the lower level and 17,175 square feet on the upper level.) The Planning Staff can support the reported change, subject to a large portion of the lower level of the northern -most building being used for storage for the reported furniture store use. BACKGROUND: The site was zoned PCD by Ordinance No.16,573, passed by the Board of Directors on January 18, 1994. This followed the public hearing at the Planning Commission on November 16, 1993. The uses for the site were limited to those contained in the schedule of permitted uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district, plus an additional use, a video rental store. Additional conditions were: 1) dumpster pickup was to be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM; 2) no doors or windows were to be allowed on the rear, east, side of the building (except emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal); 3) a 6 foot high screening fence was to be erected along the top of the retaining wall and continue along the retaining wall alignment 20 feet off the rear property line; and, 4) evergreen plantings, which, when mature, will grow to a minimum of 15 feet in height, were to be planted in the 20 foot wide buffer strip along the rear, east, property line, and were to be planted to overlap to provide a solid screening of the site from the east. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend his approved PCD to both modify the site plan and to add an additional use to the listing of approved uses. The applicant proposes: 1) to change the rear, east, landscape buffer from 20 feet in depth to 8 feet in depth; 2) to construct an access drive behind (to the east of) the southernmost building and a partial drive (50 feet from both the north and south ends of the building) behind the northernmost building; 3) to change the square footage of the buildings on the site to a total of 45,600 square feet in lieu of the 33,250 square feet previously approved (with the southernmost building being 12,000 square feet in lieu of the 9,000 square feet which was approved, and the northernmost building being two floors at 16,800 square feet each, or 33,600 square feet total, in lieu of the 24,250 square foot building originally approved, with its lower floor area having been 7,125 square feet and upper floor area having been 17,175 square feet); and 4) to add a restaurant 2 } December 1,., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B use to the listing of approved uses. The restaurant is proposed to be a "sit-down" restaurant. A waiver from the requirement that 5 additional feet of right-of- way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended PCD and for a waiver of the requirement that 5 additional feet of right- of-way along Bowman Rd. be dedicated. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but has been cleared of trees and vegetation, and has been graded in preparation for development. The site slopes generally downward from a high point at the south property line to a low point at the northeast corner of the tract, with a total differential in grades of 63 feet. The site is presently zoned FCD. Land to the north and across Bowman Rd. to the west is zoned C-3. The lot to the south is zoned C-1. The Birchwood Subdivision, with its R-2 zoning, lies to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) An additional 5 feet of right-of-way for Bowman Rd., a minor arterial roadway, must be dedicated, 2) The proposed partial access drive behind the northernmost building should be a through drive to provide emergency access. 3) A complete grading plan will be required prior to any building permit being approved. 4) The required stormwater detention analysis must be provided, and the effects on downstream systems must be evaluated. Provide for the 100 -year discharge from the site through adjacent properties. 5) The proposed retaining wall shall be constructed as a terraced wall, with the maximum height being 10 feet at any location. The first wall behind the properties to the east shall be located a 01 December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B horizontal distance, as a minimum, equal to the height of the wall. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available on the west side of Bowman Rd. and east of the property on Autumn Rd. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the rear, east, property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that on-site fire hydrants may be needed. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet minimum Ordinance requirements. Site Plan Review Specialist comments, continued: A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east perimeter of the site. This screen may either be a wood fence, with its face directed outward, or be evergreen shrubs which are 301, in height at planting, spaced every 3 feet. Curb and guttering or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the proposed grade elevation difference along the eastern side of the property, additional buffer width may be necessary. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: A parking analysis needs to be submitted, not just a listing of the number of spaces provided. Staff needs an analysis, based on the square footage of each of the proposed uses in order to make a determination on the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The plan proposes 109 parking spaces. This represents one space for each 418 square feet N December 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B of building area. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, that one parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area is to be provided; for general business and retail sales, one space for each 300 square feet of floor area is to be provided; and, for restaurants, one space for each 100 square feet of floor area is to be provided. The original PCD showed two buildings. The north building was to have 24,250 square feet (7,125 on the lower level and 17,175 on the upper level), and the south building was to have 9,000 square feet, for a total of 33,250 square feet, representing 25.7% building coverage. The new proposal is for two buildings, with a total of 45,600 square feet and a building coverage of 28.3%. Sec. 36-299 requires the building coverage for C-1 districts not to exceed 350 of the lot area. Other commercial districts do not have building coverage limits. In the originally approved PCD, the requirement to dedicate the additional 5 feet of right-of-way along Bowman Rd. was not specified by Public Works, and is not a requirement of the approved PCD. E. ANALYSIS• The original PCD required a 20 foot, heavily planted, buffer along the rear, east, property line; this request reduces this buffer to 8 feet. The retaining wall, 8 feet off the property line, stands as much as 28.5 feet above the finished grade at one point behind the north building, and generally ranges in the 16 to 20 foot high range for most of the length of the rear, east, property line. From both the landscaping buffer requirement and the Public Works civil engineering perspective, this proposed condition is unacceptable. The buffer width is insufficient, and the shear wall, without "benches", without providing a terraced effect, is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically denied any doors or windows, or any driveways along the rear, east, face of the property, excluding any emergency doors required by the Fire Marshal. The new PCD requests driveways along the entire length of one of the buildings and over half the length of the other. Since a walk and drive are proposed in this area, it is presumed that loading from the rear facade is anticipated, and that doors are proposed. Activity at the rear, east, face of the building is a significant change from the originally negotiated and subsequently approved concept for the development. This is unacceptable. 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B The original PCD specifically excluded dumpsters from the rear property line area; the proposed development places the dumpsters in this area. Again, this change is unacceptable. The original PCD specifically limited dumpster service hours; no change in this provision has been made by the applicant. The original PCD recognized the necessity for buffering the non-residential uses from the residential neighborhood to the east. Landscape buffering was to be heavy. Commercial activity was to be excluded from the rear, east, facade of the building and from the eastern part of the lot. This approved concept has changed drastically, and is not acceptable. The proposed parking provisions appear insufficient for the types of uses proposed. The development is, basically, a "shopping center" (to use the applicant's terminology); yet, the parking is deficient for even an office development, let along a commercial development. A restaurant use requires much more parking than is allotted. The proposal anticipates a lot coverage of 28.3%. Even with a 5 foot right-of-way dedication, the lot coverage only increases to 29.1%. The C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning district permits up to 35% coverage. Although the originally approved PCD had a lot coverage of 25.7%, and the new proposal has increased this percentage, it is still in line with the allowable coverage of the C-1 zoning district. (The permitted uses in the approved PCD are C-1 uses.) The Planning staff reports that the site is located in the I-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" uses for the site. The proposed amended PCD makes the use exclusively a commercial center, and the Planning staff believes that the intensity of the use is not appropriate. The City, in approving the existing PCD, already compromised the Plan by not requiring a mixture of office and commercial uses in the PCD. The amended request does not meet the intent of the original compromise. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD, and recommends denial of the waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right-of-way along Bowman Rd. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the nature of the request, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. Rees and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, discussed the Public Works comments; specifically, he reviewed the comments concerning the needed design change in the sheer retaining wall along the rear property line. Staff discussed the changes regarding access to the rear of the building and the change in buffer width. Mr. Rees responded that he needed the changes to accommodate the intended tenants in the development, and said that modifying the retaining wall as described by Public Works would eliminate access to the rear of the building. He concluded that he would have to pursue approval of the site plan as presented, without making the modifications required by staff. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, was present. Staff outlined the request, noting the fact and conditions of the earlier PCD approval, and contrasting these with the current request. Staff noted that there are a number of staff concerns, as well as there being neighborhood opposition. Staff explained that, even with the applicant's designation of 15,600 square feet of the north building as a furniture store, with 10,920 square feet of this store being designated for warehousing, the Parking Regulations require 154 parking spaces on the site, with 109 spaces being provided. Staff said that if the applicant deletes the restaurant use, 124 paring spaces would be required on site. This still, staff explained, exceeds the requirements of the Parking Regulations. Staff noted that, in a planned development, the Parking Regulations may be used as a guide, and are not mandatory; but, that the site needs to have sufficient parking for patrons and employees. Mr. Rees recounted the changes in the site plan and use list from the previously approved PCD, but indicated that, due to the neighborhood opposition and to the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant use, he was amending his request to delete the restaurant use from the current application. He reported that, at a meeting with David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, a discussion of a "tiered" or terraced retaining wall had taken place, but Mr. Rees explained that, if such a wall were installed, the first tier of the wall would have to be placed on the property line in order for him to retain the rear 7 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B drive and access to the buildings. He said that he had talked with abutting neighbors, and would agree to plant shrubbery in the abutting property owner's back yards, if the wall were to be constructed on the property line. He related that, as the developer of the property, he was not interested in developing a property with insufficient parking, but that he felt that, with the types of tenants which he was soliciting, the 109 parking spaces shown on the site plan would provide sufficient parking. Staff reported that a letter and petition had been received from the Birchwood Neighborhood Association expressing the Association's opposition to the proposed amended PCD. Staff indicated that a copy of this letter had been placed at each of the Commissioner's desk. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, reported that the plan calls for all stormwater to be collected in an enclosed underground drainage system, and for the stormwater to be retained in an underground detention system and discharged to a catch basin on Bowman Rd. He said that no stormwater would be diverted towards the subdivision, and that, once the site is developed, the problem the abutting property owners are currently experiencing with the stormwater run-off will be corrected. Mr. F. B. Boyd, vice-president of and representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He related that the Association supported Mr. Rees' removing the restaurant from the applicant, but that the Association also objected to the drive -around behind the buildings and to the decrease of the buffer area along the east property line. He said that the Association also objects to the height of the retaining wall which the abutting property owners would have to look at. He presented a petition from the Association in opposition to the application. Mr. Havis Jacks, identifying himself as an abutting property owner, spoke in opposition to the amended PCD. He said that he opposed the restaurant use; he opposed the decrease in the buffer depth; he opposed any loading docks in the rear of the building; and, he opposed the dumpsters being located at the rear of the buildings. He said that the abutting property owners would be looking at the back of the buildings and at the retaining wall, and, despite how nice the drawings of the front of the shopping center look, he and his neighbors would not be seeing that view. Mr. Bill Ruck, identifying himself as living on Birchwood Dr., right around the corner from Alamo Dr., spoke in opposition to the request. He recalled that, in approving the PCD originally, the Commission and Birchwood residents had "bent over backward" to make concessions so that the property would be a usable and developable piece of property, and he objected to the developer now proposing to decrease the buffer depth from 20 feet to 8 C:3 December 1:r., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B feet, and to increase the building size by 30%. He pointed out that, by elevating the buildings and activity to the top of the retaining wall, Alamo residents will be looking up to a higher plane where the activity will be taking place, and that the activities will not be screened, but will be more visible to those residents further away from the property. He pointed out that the tiered design of the retaining wall was required by Code, and that the developer ought to have to comply with this requirement. He pointed out that, if the parking is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations, then the developer ought to realized that he is possibly trying to crowd too much onto the site. He urged the Commission to retain the buffers and separation of the commercial uses from the abutting property owners, and to deny the application. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the request. She said that residential neighbors need buffering from commercial uses, and that the application to reduce the buffers was not good. She said that the loading docks at the rear of the buildings, and being so close to the rear property line, would produce an activity which would be intrusive to the abutting property owners. She also observed that the revised site plan was apparently proposing to over build the site, and that this was good neither for the applicant or the neighborhood. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the route of the sewer tie -on; indicating that Wastewater had said that one available route would take the service main across abutting residential properties. Mr. Rees responded that the sewer tie -on would be to the available sewer on Bowman Rd. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that the City of North Little Rock is currently being sued over approving a 27 to 30 foot high screening wall to separate a residential development from the Lakewood Shopping Center property; that the screening wall was south of a 20 foot landscape buffer; yet, the wall would decrease the value of the abutting residential properties by approximately 25%. He cautioned the Commission to consider the implications of this lawsuit in making any changes to the Rees PCD site. Mr. Rees pointed out that the drive-arounds would be used for van -type vehicles, not large trucks, and that, because of the height of the drives in relation to the rear yards of the abutting residences, and with the privacy fence at the top of the wall, the abutting residences would not see much if any of the vans; that, in fact, they would see only the top of the buildings. He said that any deliveries would be occurring between 10:00 and 4:00, and that most residents would be at work during those hours. He said that there would be no loading dock December 1e., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B at the south building. He reiterated that he would control the types of tenants to whom he would lease space, and would not permit lessees who would require large numbers of parking spaces. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the requested waiver from the dedication of additional right-of-way. Staff pointed out that, when the original PGD was approved, Public Works had failed to note the requirement, and that the PCD was approved without the additional right-of-way being required. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, said that Bowman Rd. is "built out", but that the additional right-of-way is a requirement of the Master Street Plan and is needed for utilities. Chairperson Walker, noting that in some instances where the street is built out, the right-of-way is dedicated and the Public Works Department grants a franchise to the developer for use of the right-of-way. Mr. Scherer responded that such an arrangement could probably be worked out; that the Public Works Department Director would probably be amenable to such a franchise. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification on the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees responded that the south dumpster would be below grade; the north dumpster would be substantially higher than the abutting property; and, that the dumpsters would be enclosed in an 8 foot high fence; thus, that the dumpsters would not be visible from the abutting residential area. He said that he did not want the dumpsters to be located at the front of the property. Staff commented that, in the originally approved PCD, the dumpsters were to be located at the front of the property along Bowman Rd. Mr. Boyd reiterated the Association's opposition to the drive- arounds and rear locations of the dumpsters. Mr. Rees said that his dumpster service company, BFI, would service the dumpsters only between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Chairperson Walker summarized the requested action and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The vote was taken and the Commission denied the amended PCD with the vote of 0 ayes, 7 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 open position. 10 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. M December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-6060 NAME: PIEDMONT OFFICE PARK -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 0.1 mile east of Sam Peck Rd. DEVELOPER: DR. GENE GINES, ERIC HUTCHINSON, & DR. JOHN DANIELS 14710 Cantrell Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 868-4140 AREA: 3.8 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 ENGINEER: Frank Riggins THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Professional Offices 1) Approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. 2) Approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. 3) Approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 4) Approval of a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a planned development for a four -lot subdivision of a 3.8313 acre site, to entail the construction of four professional office buildings, with associated parking, pedestrian walkways, and landscaping features, situated along the shore of a portion of a lake. Two of the lots have frontage on Cantrell Rd.; two will take their access by way of access easements across the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots. A cross -access easement is to be platted along the internal drives to link the parking areas associated with each of the buildings, and maintenance of the drive system is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance. December 1�, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 Each of the lots will be the site of a professional office building. Three of the buildings are to be single -story structures, each with approximately 2400 square feet. One building is to be a story -and -a -half structure, and will contain approximately 5,000 square feet. The architecture of the buildings will be residential in character and scale, with roofs being hipped and walls being brick finishes. A gazebo is proposed to be located on a peninsula along the lake shore. The internal pedestrian walkway system will link the various office buildings and parking lots, as well as the landscape structure and features. No connection to abutting properties of the internal walkway system is proposed, and no sidewalk is proposed to be provided along Cantrell Rd., the applicant noting that there are no sidewalks along Cantrell Rd. to which a sidewalk along the applicant's frontage would connect. A driveway for each of the Cantrell Rd. fronting lots is proposed. It is the intent of the applicant to "preserve as much of the natural setting of the site,, and to "maintain as many of the trees as possible", and to "maintain the lake as a natural site amenity". Maintenance of the lake is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance, and means will be taken during construction to protect water quality. The applicant proposes to provide extensive landscaping around the buildings and to screen the parking areas. No fencing or dense evergreen screening is proposed along the south property line along the lake shore, since imposing the land use buffer would "deny the owners, their employees, and visitors to the site the enjoyment of the most valuable visual asset of the property." Stormwater detention is to be provided on site on a development -wide basis. Site lighting is to be by low-level decorative street lamp type fixtures on 12 to 15 foot tall posts. Street signage will be limited to two, low -lighted monument signs located at each access point on Cantrell Rd. Uses are anticipated to be dental offices; however, approval of all uses by right in the 0-2 zoning district are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a planned development. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Planning Commission review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. 2 December 14, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 Planning Commission approval is requested for a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Planning Commission approval is requested for a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is wooded, with a drive and home located along the west shoreline of the on-site lake. The topography ranges from the lake elevation of 384 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) to approximately an elevation of 396 feet MSL along Cantrell Rd. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. The R-2 zoning district includes land to the east and south, although the land to the east is occupied by a non -conforming commercial use. Residential lots abut the site to the south, across the lake. Land to the west is zoned 0-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The property is on Ison Creek, beyond the Flood Insurance study. The Corps and ADPL&E should be provided with sketch plan information and be allowed to comment, as applicable. Flow information on the stream and lake should be available for review. A grading permit and base flood information with finished floor elevations is required prior to construction. Driveway grades shall conform to Ordinance requirements. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department must approve driveway locations and design. Stormwater dentition analysis is required. A 6 foot wide sidewalk along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site is required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. PRZ backflow prevention will be required if the buildings contain doctors, offices. In addition to the normal connection charges, a pro -rata frontage charge of $15 per foot applies. Wastewater comments that sewer is available at the site. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the entire perimeter of the subdivision. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Staff has been told that there is a deed restriction granted by the developer of the Piedmont area which limits uses of all property the developer sold to residential uses, and that the Piedmont property owners are prepared to enforce this deed restriction. The City, however, is not a party to such deed restrictions, and is not bound by them in zoning matters. The land owners are responsible for enforcing such deed restrictions by appropriate legal means. It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act as an enforcement agent for the Piedmont property owners, or to base zoning decisions on such private agreements. The Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-231, requires that all lots front on a public street, unless the Planning Commission approves a private street in a private access easement. Two of the lots do not front on a public street; therefore, the applicant has asked for access to be provided by access easements and a private internal street system. The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-210 provides that, for lots fronting on highways such as Cantrell Rd., shared or common driveway points are encouraged for lots that are less then 300 feet in frontage, and that sites shall be limited to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage. The applicant has provided for a shared access to the lots, but has requested two access points for the 512.5 feet of lot frontage, with the drive access points being 300 feet apart. Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk be provided along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, noting that there are no sidewalks on abutting properties on the south side of Cantrell Rd. Sec. 31-287 states that, where an office subdivision requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets, and that the design of service easements shall be built to public street design standards. The applicant has an internal pedestrian circulation system provided, and seeks a wavier from the requirement to provide sidewalks along the interior driveways. when office developments abut single-family zoned property, a land use buffer is required. Since the lake forms the buffer between the office development and the residences to the south, a waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line is requested. Sec. 31-89 requires that: a) a storm drainage analysis, showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries be furnished. Any property within the floodway or floodplain should be noted. A preliminary storm drainage plan, incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections, should be included. b) the certification be shown which certifies that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years. Sec. 31-91 provides a suggested verbiage for the Certification of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy which includes this language. c) proposed PAGIS monuments be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates be executed. Sec. 36-502 requires, for business and professional office uses, 1 parking space be provided for each 400 square feet of gross square feet of building size. There are three, 2400 square foot buildings, each requiring 6 parking spaces. There is one 5000 square foot building, requiring 13 spaces. At total of 31 parking spaces is required to be provided on the site; 55 spaces are provided. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that: a) Areas set aside for interior, building, and perimeter landscaping are in compliance with and exceed the Landscaping Ordinance requirements. 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 b) If dumpsters are to be used, they must be located on the site plan, and must be screened on three sides by an 8 foot high wood fence or wall. c) A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required to screen the business activity from adjacent residential zoned property to the south, east, and west. d) The Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance -requires a sprinkler system to water plants. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff reports that the requested Planned Development is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone". The request, then, is in conformance with the Plan. The plans and required documentation are substantially complete, with very minimal deficiencies remaining to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development. Staff recommends approval of a common access easement and private interior drives for access to interior lots. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested variance to permit two entrance drives from Cantrell Rd. Comments and a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer need to be heard on the matter of the requested waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Cantrell Rd. and along the interior driveways. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the land use buffer along the south property line abutting the lake. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the planned development request. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline issues with Mr. Riggins. Staff reported to Mr. Riggins the assertions by Piedmont residents that the office use of the All } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6060 property is not permitted in their deeds, and cautioned Mr. Riggins to investigate this issue. It was noted by staff, however, that the City would not enforce any deed or Bill of Assurance restrictions. Mr. Riggins reported that all issues raised in the discussion outline would be addressed, and that amended drawings and information would be furnished to staff. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that the hearing of this item be deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. Staff reported, however, that the Commission Bylaws require requests for deferral be submitted at least five (5) working days prior to the Commission hearing, and that the request for deferral had been made on Friday, October 27th., two (2) working days prior to the hearing. A waiver of the Bylaws provision, staff explained, would need to be approved by the Commission. Commissioner Putnam, noting that several persons were in attendance at the meeting who were in opposition to the requested Planned Development zoning, asked if it might be appropriate to allow the objectors to present their viewpoint. Mr. Brent Peterson, a spokesperson for the group of Piedmont neighbors, said that the neighbors would not object to a deferral, and that the deferral would allow them to review the requested rezoning. A motion was made and seconded to waive the Bylaws provision requiring submission of deferral requests at least five (5) working days prior the Commission hearing, and the waiver was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. The deferral remained on the Consent Agenda for deferral, as presented by staff, and the deferral was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 17, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff k } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE _NO : Z-6060 recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 93 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 FILE NO.: Z -6063-A Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Kenny Goodwin Kenny Goodwin 301 East Roosevelt Road Rezone from C-3 to C-4 Vehicle Sales Lot .32 acres Food Store SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Old VA Hospital site; zoned PCD and Single -Family residence; zoned R-5 South - Vacant, zoned R-3 East - Car Wash, zoned C-3 West - Housing Authority Offices and Shops, zoned C-3 STAFF UPDATE: The applicant had presented his request for rezoning of the subject site from C-3 to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. At this hearing, the applicant explained that he acted as a used car broker, and that only a minimal number of cars would be present or displayed on the property. He reported, also, that he anticipated not only continuing the grocery store use of the existing building, but adding a restaurant use to the second floor of the building. He reported that he would comply with the Public Works requirement for Master Street Plan improvements to Roosevelt Rd.; that the on-site parking and drives would be paved; and that he would comply with the Landscaping requirements for buffering of the site from the residential uses to the east. In light of the described mix use of the site, and of the minimal "open display" of used cars, a suggestion was offered by Planning Commission members that the C-4 rezoning request be amended to a PCD request. The applicant agreed with this suggestion, and further hearing of the item was deferred until the December 12, 1995 Commission hearing in order to allow the applicant to present a PCD site plan. The site plan was submitted showing the existing two-story, 2,775 square foot per floor building, drive access and parking for 16 vehicles, and landscaping. The applicant December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A reported that the uses would include the grocery store use on the first floor of the exiting building, a restaurant use on the second floor of the building, and a vehicle sales lot occupying the 5 parking spaces abutting the Roosevelt Rd. Required improvements to Roosevelt Rd., as well as eliminating the on -street customer parking at the front of the building, will be implemented. Public Works reiterates the comments contained in the agenda "write-up". The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that a 5 foot wide on-- site landscape buffer north of the proposed vehicular use area along Roosevelt Rd. is required, and that a 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the east property line. (This opaque screen may either be a wood fence with its face directed outward, or be dense evergreen plantings.) The Neighborhoods and Planning staff note that a food store requires 1 parking space for each 300 feet of gross floor area (exclusive of storage space), plus 4 spaces. For a 2,775 square foot food store, the parking regulations will require up to 14 spaces. A restaurant use requires 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. A 2,775 square foot restaurant will require 28 parking spaces. A total of 11 spaces is provided on the site plan for these two occupancies. The applicant presented his site plan to the Subdivision Committee on November 22, 1995. The Public works staff noted that the parking spaces at the southwest corner of the tract had inadequate maneuvering space and an inadequate turning radius from the central driveway, and that no parking would be permitted on the right-of-way. The Site Plan Review Specialist noted that additional landscaping to that shown will be required, and that a six foot high opaque screen will be required along the east property line. The applicant indicated that he would make further changes in the site plan, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. Staff continues to recommend denial of the "open display" use for the property, and, therefore, recommends denial of the requested PCD. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Confirm that 70 feet of right-of-way exists for Roosevelt; if deficient, dedicate right-of-way. Cumberland right-of- way does not appear to exist, this street is not on city maps or on Master Street Plan. ROW on 26th appears to be adequate. With construction, sidewalks will be required on 2 } } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A both Roosevelt and 26th Street and improvements to 26th may be required. AHTD permits will be required prior to construction in the Roosevelt ROW. Traffic Engineering requests: 1. Eliminate all parking in right-of-way. 2. Pave gravel parking area. 3. Current access to Roosevelt is inadequate and will require reconstruction. 4. 12 foot driveway shall be reconstructed to 18 feet. 5. Widen Roosevelt to 24 feet from centerline with construction. LAND USE ELEMENT The site in question is located District. The adopted Land Use Commercial. The request is for classification neither meets the land use classification. Staff the plan at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS in the Central City Plan recommends Mixed Office "C-4.11 A "C-4" letter nor spirit of the cannot recommend amending The request before the Commission is to rezone this .32± acre site from C-3 to C-4 to accommodate a vehicle sales lot. The site consists of two lots, one of which fronts on Roosevelt road and one which fronts on East 26th Street. The property is occupied by a 2,745+ square foot, brick structure containing a neighborhood grocery store. The building has only a 4.3± foot setback from the Roosevelt Road property line and customer parking now occurs in the Roosevelt Road right-of-way. An area of gravel parking is adjacent to the west side of the building. The property slopes severely from Roosevelt Road down to East 26th Street. The southern half of the site, which fronts on to East 26th Street, is mostly overgrown and unused. The applicant requests the reclassification of the property from C-3, General Commercial to C-4, Open Display District to allow a vehicle sales lot. The applicant has not indicated if the vehicle sales lot is to replace the existing food store or if the sale of vehicles is to take place on the site along with the existing food store. The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Office Commercial for the site. This land use category provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. A Planned Unit Development is recommended if the use 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1Z_-_6063(Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A is entirely commercial or if the use is a mixture of Office and Commercial. The requested C-4 reclassification meets neither the letter nor spirit of the land use classification. The C-4 Open Display District development criteria restricts any open display of any kind whatsoever in the first 20 feet of the required 45 foot front yard setback. Due to the location of the existing building and the availability of area on the site for the display of vehicles, it would appear that the vehicles would have to be displayed primarily behind the building. This would put the predominance of the proposed car lot directly across East 26th Street from the residential neighborhood to the south. The C-4 request does not conform to the adopted Land Use Plan and staff cannot support a C-4 request at this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-4 zoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 1995) The applicant, Kenny Goodwin, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial of the C-4 request. Mr. Goodwin addressed the Commission and discussed his plans for development of the property. He stated that he wished to construct a parking lot on the south side of the property and to display a small number of vehicles on the west side of the building. He stated that no additional structures would be built on the site. Mr. Goodwin stated that the grocery store would continue to occupy the upper floor of the existing building and that the office for the car sales business would also be located on this portion of the building. He stated that he hoped to put a restaurant in the lower level. Mr. Goodwin then handed out a written development proposal for the site. Commissioner Daniel suggested that the item should be deferred to allow the applicant to discuss his specific development plans with staff. Commissioner Woods stated that he did not believe the site could support all of the proposed uses. He questioned the availability of adequate parking. Mr. Goodwin stated that the office would be for more of an automobile brokerage business; that state law required an 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A automobile broker to have an office. He stated that cars would be kept at an auction yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, Mr. Goodwin stated that cars would be displayed on Lot 6 (the lot behind the building). Mr. Goodwin then stated that customer parking would be located behind the store and that vehicle display would be located west of the building. Commissioner Putnam asked the City Attorney present if the state law requiring automobile dealers to have a sales lot actually required that cars sales take place from the lot or if there could be only an office at the location. Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, responded that she was unsure. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, stated that the City had an agreement with the State Police whereby the state requires car dealers to have a business location on commercial property. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could have only an office on the site and keep the used cars elsewhere. Mr. Wood stated that Mr. Goodwin could not park cars or display a car lot sign on the property. Acting Chairman Ball asked if there would be a problem if Mr. Goodwin had "purely an office use" on the site for his automobile brokerage business. Mr. wood responded that the office would be allowed. Commissioner Rahman stated that he understood that Mr. Goodwin could conduct all of the uses he proposed (car brokerage office only, grocery store and restaurant) on the C-3 property as it is. Staff confirmed that those uses were allowed as long as Mr. Goodwin did not display any cars on the property. Acting Chairman Ball stated that Mr. Goodwin had indicated a desire to display cars on the site, to the west of the building. Mr. Goodwin stated that it was his desire to comply with all city codes. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, Mr. Goodwin stated that he did not intend to display cars on the site, only to have a sign identifying the property as his car lot. He then stated that he would be driving a vehicle to and from the site. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Ball, Mr. Goodwin stated that he would be buying and selling cars at the auction. Mr. Wood stated that it would be virtually impossible to enforce a situation where a property is identified as a car 5 1 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F -1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A lot but not allowed to have vehicles displayed for sale. He stated that enforcement staff could not tell which vehicles are displayed for sale and which vehicles belong to customers of the grocery store and proposed restaurant. Commissioner Lichty stated that there was also a problem with the multiple uses proposed on the site; primarily the car sales. Acting Chairman Ball stated that the real issue was a land use question regarding the proposed C-4 zoning. He then stated that he felt there had been adequate discussion of the item. Commissioner Chachere questioned whether it might be possible to approach the matter as a PUD with limits on vehicle sales. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that a PUD could address such issues as the mixture of uses proposed and limitations on vehicle display. He stated that staff would still be opposed to vehicle sales, a C-4 use, on the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Mr. Carney stated that staff had not seen the site plan and development plan presented by Mr. Goodwin. There was a brief discussion of the proposed site plan. Mr. Goodwin stated that he was willing to meet with staff and to amend his application to a PUD. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated December 5, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the deferral. The requested deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for approval of the deferral, and was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff recalled for the Commission that the applicant had submitted a request for rezoning of the property to C-4 at the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing, but that C December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A Commissioners had recommended to the applicant that converting the application to a planned development application might be more appropriate. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted the required site plan, and that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the plan. At the Subdivision Committee meeting, there were deficiencies which had been noted in the site plan, and, staff reported, a revised site plan showing the revisions had not been submitted subsequent to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommended denial of the proposed PCD designation, noting that the "open display"/C-4 use is inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan for the area. Staff reported that the adopted Land Use Plan for the site, which is in the Central City District, recommends "Mixed Office Commercial" for the land use; however, if the PCD is approved, a Land Use Plan amendment will not be required. Mr. Kenny Goodwin, the applicant, said that he would comply with all requirements concerning dedication of right-of-way along Roosevelt Rd., prohibiting parking on the Roosevelt Rd. right-of-way and providing a drive access point onto the property from Roosevelt Rd., providing off-street parking and changing the site plan to incorporate the needed changes indicated by Public Works at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and providing the required landscaping. He related that he was under the impression that the revised site plan had been submitted to staff. Mr. Sam Nwaneri, the project engineer, said that there are some minor changes which were discussed with staff, but that he was under the impression that the drawing which had been submitted was sufficiently complete and accurate for the Commission's review. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, outlined the deficiencies which staff had noted: the arrangement of the parking spaces at the southwest quadrant of the site not permitting sufficient depth for maneuvering space; an access and apron problem at the access drive from Roosevelt Rd.; improvement requirements on Roosevelt Rd.; etc. He noted that the site plan which was being presented to the Commission did not address the deficiencies noted by staff previously. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles cautioned the Commission regarding approving a site plan which had not corrected the deficiencies noted previously. 7 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F-1 Z-6063 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6063-A Commissioner Putnam suggested to Mr. Goodwin that, in his project narrative, he address the number of cars which will be associated with the "open display" use; recalling that Mr. Goodwin had said during the November 14, 1995 Commission hearing that he acted as a used car broker, and only needed the zoning to permit the used car sales business in order to comply with the State licensing requirements. Mr. Goodwin agreed that a deferral would permit him to address the use and site plan issues. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on a deferral of the item until the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 0 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: G Z -4175-C Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: ERC Foundation, Inc. J. E. Hathaway, Jr. 3000 Block of Aldersgate Road Rezone from MF -12 to 0-3 Nursing Home 5± acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned OS and MF -18 South - Vacant, zoned MF -12 East - Vacant, zoned MF -12 West - Vacant, zoned OS and MF -12 ENGINEERING COMMENTS A tentative address is 3000 Aldersgate Road but depends on location of Master Street Plan extension of Aldersgate Road. Dedicate right-of-way for Aldersgate Road or show alternate route and commit to a revised location. The 30 foot strip of property to the north, if not for Aldersgate Road does not belong to applicant and should be excluded from this application. The driveways shall conform to ordinance. Sidewalks shall be planned to connect with sidewalk on Aldersgate Road. Provide erosion control plan and obtain state AFDC&E and City Excavation Permit prior to construction. Stormwater Detention analysis will be required. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Plan recommends Multifamily use. The request is in conflict with the Plan. The proposed use is one staff feels comfortable with as part of a multifamily mixed development. Staff cannot support a plan change to Office at this time. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z -4175-C (Cont.) STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 5± acre tract from MF -12 to 0-3. The property is currently vacant and wooded. The proposed use is the development of a nursing home. The I-430 District Land Use Plan recommends multifamily use for the site. The 0-3 zoning request is in conflict with the Plan. The proposed use of the property as a nursing home can be accommodated by zoning the property MF -18 and obtaining a conditional use permit. This suggestion would conform to the adopted Plan and would allow for the development as proposed by the applicant. 0-3 in this area would be spot zoning and staff cannot support such a request when a viable alternative is available. The issue of the dedication of right-of-way for Aldersgate Road, from its current terminus several hundred feet north of this site, to a point on the western boundary of the property must be resolved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 zoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 3, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested that the item be deferred to the October 31, 1995 meeting to coincide with a preliminary plat which will be reviewed at that time. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were Staff informed the Commission that the requested that the item be deferred to Commission hearing to coincide with the of the preliminary plat issue. KI (OCTOBER 31, 1995) no objectors present. applicant had the December 12, 1995 requested deferral December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z -4175-C (Cont.) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the December 12, 1995 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Jeff Hathaway was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated December 11, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the January 30 1996 Commission meeting. A motion was made to waive the Bylaws since the request for deferral was not made at least 5 working days prior to the Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 3 a December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: H Z-6016 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Richard Day (Trust) Richard F. Day, Jr. 4411 Baseline Road Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Sell 1.34 acres Single -Family Residence and Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residential and various nonconforming commercial uses, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family residential, zoned R-2 East - Single -Family residential, zoned R-2 West - Nonconforming convenience store with gas pumps, zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Adjacent rights-of-way are in compliance with Master Street Plan. With construction the applicant will be required to improve Reck Road to collector street standards with sidewalk, curb and gutter, and pavement widening. Stormwater detention analysis will be required due to parcel size being larger than 1 acre and other provisions of the Ordinances will be reviewed at the time of building permit. Contact AHTD for approval of any construction in the right- of-way of Baseline Road. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Geyer Springs District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Mixed Residential. The request is in conflict with the Plan and staff cannot recommend changing the plan at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.34 acre tract from R-2 to C-3. The tract is comprised of December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H Z-6016 (Cont. portions of two lots of Rinke Garden Acres and is located near the southeast corner of Baseline Road and Reck Road. One single family residence occupies a portion of the site and the remainder is vacant. There are no immediate plans for the property other than trying to sell it to a commercial user. Although there are many non-residential uses in the immediate vicinity, they were in place prior to this area being annexed into the City and the majority are zoned R-2. Along the south side of Baseline Road, the Land Use Plan recommends commercial for properties to the west of Reck Road and mixed residential for properties east of Reck Road. The requested C-3 zoning is in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. Staff believes there has been no change in circumstances to warrant a change in the Plan and, as such, cannot support the requested rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the C-3 rezoning request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 22, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were three persons present with concerns related to the proposed zoning. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Donna Dillahunty, of 10716 Platte Valley Drive, addressed the Commission. She stated that she owns property on Bruno Road which abuts the property in question. Ms. Dillahunty stated that she did not receive the notice of public hearing 15 days prior to the meeting. She stated that she understood Mr. Day seeking commercial zoning for his property but that she was opposed to zoning the 50 foot wide strip which extends to Reck Road and which abuts her property. Ms. Dillahunty questioned why the Land Use Plan recommends mixed residential for property east of Reck Road when there are many commercial uses already in place. She concluded by asking that the item be deferred. A discussion then took place concerning making the public notification more visible and not "hidden" in the legal section of the newspaper. In response to a question, Dana Carney of the Planning Staff, confirmed that the notice of public hearing had been mailed 14 days prior to the meeting; not 15 days as required by the Commission's Bylaws. 2 I December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H Z-6016 (Cont.) Verla Berkau, of 5300 Rinke Road, addressed the Commission. She stated that she wanted property she owns on Baseline Road considered for commercial zoning if Mr. Day's application was approved. It was noted that the applicant was not present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to defer the item to the October 31, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) The applicant, Richard Day, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial of the rezoning request. It was noted that the C-3 request was in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan, which recommended Mixed Residential for the site. Mr. Day addressed the Commission. He stated that the location of the site made it no longer suitable for residential use. Mr. Day stated that he had the home on the property rented currently but wanted to rezone it and then sell the property. In response to a question, Mr. Day briefly discussed the relationship of his property to the adjacent convenience store. Chairman Walker and Commissioner Putnam each suggested that Mr. Day approach the Commission with a specific development rather than an Open C-3 zoning request. After a further brief discussion of his options, Mr. Day agreed to defer the application. Mr. Doyle Dillahunty, owner of property directly south of Mr. Day's, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not oppose the rezoning of that portion of Mr. Day's property which was adjacent to Baseline Road but that he did want a buffer along the southern perimeter. The item was presented for deferral to the December 12, 1995 Commission meeting. The deferral was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant 3 I December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H Z-6016 (Cont.) had requested a deferral to the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting due to an illness in the family. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the January 30, 1996 Commission meeting by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 4 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -410-B NAME: RIVER CLUB ADDITION, LOT 2R AND LOTS 3-21 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Pinnacle Valley Road and Yacht Club Drive, approximately 1.1 mile north and west of County Farm Road, outside the City Limits. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe White NOLAN RUSHING WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. O. Box 3546 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 372-6161 374-1666 AREA: 69.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 20 FT. NEW STREET: 2,500 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of variance to permit a private street in an access easement. 2) Approval of a variance from the standards for standard residential streets to permit an "open ditch" rural street cross-section without curbs and gutters and without a sidewalk. 3) Approval of a variance from the standards for standard residential streets to permit the cul-de-sac street to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum length regulation. 4) Approval of a variance from the regulation which prohibits lots from being more than three time as deep as they are wide. 5) Approval of a variance from the regulations which prohibits double -frontage lots, except for lots which abut arterial roadways. 6) Approval of a waiver of the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to boundary street to the subdivision. December 1,)1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 69.5 acre tract to include 20 lots, a private cul-de-sac street in an access easement, with each of the lots fronting on the private street, and a gated entry. The lots are to have an average size of 3 acres each, and the front building setback line is to be 100 feet from the front lot line of each of the lots. The private access and utility easement is proposed to be 60 feet in width; the private street is to have a 20 foot wide asphalt driving surface, without curbs and gutters, and without a sidewalk, as required by the regulations. A rural "open ditch" street section is proposed, with stormwater drainage being provided by surface ditches along each side of the street in the access and utility easement. The provision in the Bill of Assurance for a homeowners' association is to be made for the maintenance of the common areas and facilities. No improvements are proposed to be made to the boundary streets: Yacht Club Dr., by which access to the subdivision is to be taken; Pinnacle valley Rd., which abuts the subdivision at the southwest corner of the tract; and Norwood Rd., which abuts the subdivision along the west boundary of the tract. Requested is: 1) approval of a variance to permit a private street in a private access easement; 2) approval of a variance to permit an "open ditch" rural street cross-section without curbs and gutters and without a sidewalk; 3) approval of a variance to permit the cul-de-sac street to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum length regulation; 4) approval of a variance from the regulation which prohibits lots from being more than three time as deep as they are wide; 5) approval of a variance from the regulations which prohibits double -frontage lots, except for lots which abut arterial roadways; and, 6) approval of a waiver of the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to boundary street to the subdivision. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Approval by the Planning Commission of a private street in a private access and utility easement is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a a variance from the standards for standard residential streets to permit an "open ditch" rural street cross-section without curbs and gutters and without a sidewalk. E December 1G, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the standards for standard residential streets to permit the cul-de-sac street to exceed the 1,000 foot maximum length regulation. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for of a variance from the regulation which prohibits lots from being more than three time as deep as they are wide. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the regulations which prohibits double - frontage lots, except for lots which abut arterial roadways. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to boundary streets to the subdivision. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The topography ranges in elevation of from 270 to 350 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level), with the grade in much of the eastern half of the property exceeding 10% grade. The tract has boundaries on Yacht Club Dr., Pinnacle Valley Rd., and Norwood Rd. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2. There is a tract which is zoned MF -12 at the northeast corner of the tract; otherwise, all surrounding land is zoned R-2. The area is outside the City Limits. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The intersection of the subdivision street with Yacht Club Dr. must be adjusted to avoid a sight distance problem. Traffic Engineering does not approve of the intersection, as submitted. One-half street improvements to Yacht Club Dr. are required. 3 December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1(Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B Dedication of right-of-way and street improvements to minor arterial standards for Pinnacle Valley Rd., where Pinnacle Valley Rd. abuts the subdivision, are required. A sidewalk is required to be constructed along the Pinnacle Valley Rd. frontage of the tract. Right-of-way and improvements to Norwood Rd., to minimum residential street standards, is required. A sidewalk is required to be constructed along the Norwood Rd. frontage of the tract. The private street shall be to minimum 27 foot wide standard residential street standards, and the layout should be changed to eliminate the cul-de-sac design, due to the excessive length of the cul-de-sac street. A sidewalk is required to be constructed along at least one side of the residential street. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. A SFHA development permit must be obtained from Pulaski County prior to construction. A grading permit may be required. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension is required. Execution of a Pre -Annexation Agreement and approval of the City is required to obtain water service. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that the area is outside the Utility's service area boundary. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that a 15 foot wide easement will be required along the full length of the south and west property lines, along the north boundary of lots 15 through 27, along the east boundary of Lot 27, and along the common property line of Lots 13 and 14. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objections to the layout, providing no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. N December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) indicate the type of subdivision which is being proposed; 2) provide the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title, giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 3) indicate the average and minimum lot sizes; 4) furnish information on any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, 5) state the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) contours at not more than 2 foot intervals for terrain with slopes of less than 10% or at not more than 5 foot intervals for terrain with slopes exceeding 10% (Some of the plat area has contours at 10 foot intervals.); 2) the names of all streets (Yacht Club Dr. is not shown.); 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 4) the names of owners of all unplatted tracts and all tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres which abut the proposed subdivision; 5) accurate locations and adequate physical descriptions of all monuments, showing the size and type of material of all monuments; 6) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas; 7) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments; and 8) any proposed phasing of the development. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be provided with the application. Sec. 31-207 provides that the Planning Commission must approve any new private streets, but requires private streets to conform to the design standards of public streets. Private streets, it is noted, are permissible only in the form of culs-de-sac and short loop streets, and only if the design can serve all public service vehicles. The subdivider is to provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets and utility facilities in the Bill of Assurance. The applicant has requested approval of a private street in an access easement, but requests approval of a variance from the requirement that the street be built to standard residential street standards. Sec. 31-202 restricts cull -de -sac to a maximum length of 1,000 feet. The proposed cul-de-sac is 2,500 feet long. 5. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-410-B Sec. 31-209 requires that a standard residential street be 27 feet, back-to-back of curbs, and have a sidewalk along at least one side of the street. The applicant requests a variance from these requirements, and, instead, proposes a 20 foot wide asphalt street, without curbs and gutters, but with open ditches for stormwater run-off, in a 60 foot access easement. The proposed "open ditch" street section is not a standard design in the Master Street Plan. No sidewalks are proposed, and a waiver of this requirement is sought. Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the minimum of one-half the required Master Street Plan improvements is required to be provided by the developer. Yacht Club Dr., Pinnacle Valley Rd., and Norwood Rd. are boundary streets to the proposed subdivision, and, along these boundaries, the required one-half street improvements are required. The applicant requests a waiver of these required improvements and of the requirement to dedicate the right-of-way specified by the Master Street Plan. Sec. 31-232 prohibits double frontage lots, except, for example, when lots abut arterial streets. The lots which abut Pinnacle Valley Rd., a minor arterial roadway, may be double frontage; the lots which abut Norwood Rd., however, may not. A waiver of the restriction is requested. Sec. 31-257, requires a minimum 10 foot "No vehicle access" easement to be platted along Pinnacle Valley Rd., and such an easement is recommended to be platted along Norwood Rd. Sec. 31-232 prohibits the depth of residential lots from being more than 3 times their width. For the typical 200 foot wide lots, then, the lot depth should not exceed 600 feet. The lots are typically deeper than this, and a variance from this restriction is requested. Sec. 31-256 requires that the front building setback line be platted on residential subdivisions. From Yacht Club Dr. to the east boundary of proposed Lot 21, the north half of the private street easement is outside the limits of the subdivision. Evidence of the granting of the easement must be provided, and, since the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision will not be applicable to this area outside the limits of the subdivision, provision for maintenance of this portion of the street must be provided. A December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO • S 410 B E. ANALYSIS• There are deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information which need to be submitted or completed; however, the types of deficiencies are not of a critical nature and can be supplied by the developer and engineer subsequent to Planning Commission approval of the plat. The proposed lots are, typically, over 3 acres in size, and the subdivision is for 20 lots, total. The proposed street is a cul-de-sac street with gated access. With the large lots and light anticipated traffic to and from and in the subdivision, the requested variances for a private street and a variance for the length of the proposed cul-de-sac street are justified. Again, due to the 3 -acre size of the lots, the lot width to depth ratio variance is justified, and the double -frontage nature of the lots backing onto Norwood Rd. does not undermine the rationale for the regulation, subject to the platting of a "No vehicle access" easement along the Norwood Rd. frontage of the lots. The Master Street Plan proposes a rural street section as an alternative, but such a street section has not been adopted. Public Works can support the utilization of this street section in the subject subdivision. To conform to the rural street design, the roadway will have to have at least a 4 foot shoulder, a concrete "header" along the outer edge of the pavement to protect the edge of the pavement, shallow road ditches, and, if necessary, an underground stormwater drainage system which will limit the amount of stormwater runoff in the road ditches so that they can be shallow. The Master Street Plan standards for right-of-way for the boundary streets should be required to be dedicated, and Yacht Club Dr. should be improved, since the subdivision is taking access by way of Yacht Club Dr. (The alignment of the intersection of the subdivision street with Yacht Club Dr. is not approved by the Traffic Engineer; a relocation or redesign of this intersection is required.) Improvements to Pinnacle Valley Rd. and to Norwood Rd. could be delayed, since the area is well outside the City Limits, and no improvements program to the roadways is anticipated. A deferral, however, would be impractical, since, by the time the roadway would be improved, the developer would have sold the lots and would be out of the picture. An "in lieu" would be impractical, as well, since an "in lieu" contribution to the cost of street improvements has to be returned to the developer if the improvements are not undertaken within ten years, and it is unlikely that the improvements will be undertaken within this time period. A waiver, then, is probably the most logical course. 7 December 1:&, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and of the private cul-de-sac street, subject to the Board of Directors approving the needed variances, and subject to the applicant complying with the noted requirements. Staff recommends approval of the "open ditch" rural street section, subject to the developer complying with the City Engineer's requirements. Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the 1,000 foot maximum length of a cul-de-sac street to be exceeded. Staff recommends approval of the variance to the lot width to depth ratio. Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the lots backing onto Norwood Rd. to be double -frontage, subject to a "No vehicle access" easement being platted along the Norwood Rd. frontage of the lots. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Pinnacle Valley Rd. and to Norwood Rd., subject to dedication of the required right-of- way; however, staff recommends denial of the requested waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Yacht Club Dr. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Nolan Rushing, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the proposed subdivision, and reviewed with the applicant, his representative, and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White responded that the deficiencies noted would be addressed. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments, and explained the type of road section which Public Works can support. Mr. White said that shoulders and a concrete "header", as well as the design of the road ditches, could be accomplished. He said that he would be meeting with the Public Works staff and with the Planning staff during the next few days to satisfy the concerns expressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised preliminary plat which addresses a number of the concerns noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting and by staff in the agenda "write-up". Staff related that the revised plat omits the lot at the intersection of the private internal street with Yacht Club Dr., thus reducing the number of lots in the subdivision to 19 and eliminating the frontage of the subdivision on Yacht Club Dr., except at the access point to the internal private street. Staff reported that the alignment of the intersection of Yacht Club Dr. and the private internal street had been approved by the Traffic Engineer. Staff reported that the Ordinance permits the Planning Commission to authorize private streets in an access easement, and such a private street in an access easement has been requested. Staff recommended its approval. Staff reported that the Master Street Plan does not have a "rural", open ditch street section shown as an approved section, but has a recommended design for such a street. Staff reported that the applicant has requested use of a rural, open ditch street in the subdivision, and has submitted a design which, with a minor modification, Public Works can support. Staff recommended a variance to permit the open ditch street section, subject to the applicant conforming to the Public Works requirement for width of pavement. Staff reported that the Ordinance limits the maximum length of cul-de-sac streets to 1,000 feet, but that the proposed private street is 2,500 feet long, and a variance would be needed from this standard. Staff supported the variance, noting that the number of lots is only 19 homesites which will use the street, and that the subdivision will have controlled access. Staff reported that the Ordinance, envisioning normal City lots, restricts the depth of lots to no more than 3 times their width, but that the proposed lots, which are over 3 acres in size and are typically 200 feet in width would be limited in depth to 3 times their width, or, typically, 600 feet in depth. Staff noted that the lots are typically deeper than this 600 foot limitation, and indicated that a variance from the ratio to allow the deeper lots was supported by staff. Staff reported that the Ordinance prohibits double -frontage lots, except for lots backing onto major streets; therefore, that the lots backing onto the west boundary street, Norwood Rd., would be prohibited. Staff noted that, with the conditions that no access would be taken to Norwood Rd. from the subdivision and that a 10 0 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B foot wide "No vehicle access" easement be platted along this frontage, staff could support a waiver of this ordinance restriction. Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that all boundary streets to the subdivision have one-half Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements provided. Staff related that the applicant proposed make improvements to Yacht Club Dr. at the intersection with the internal private street, and that the applicant proposed to dedicate right-of-way to Master Street Plan standards for Pinnacle Valley Rd. and Norwood Rd. However, staff related, the applicant seeks a waiver of the requirement to make half street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Rd. and Norwood Rd. Staff reported that the Public Works staff does not support a total waiver of the boundary street improvements for these two streets, but is amenable to having the developer provide some, if not the full, improvements to the two boundary streets. Mr. Joe White, representing Mr. Nolan Rushing, the applicant, presented the applicant's request. He said that the applicant would comply with the Public Works requirement for the width of the asphalt pavement on the private drive. He said that staff had outlined the requested variances and waivers, and that, except for the requested wavier of improvements on Pinnacle Valley Rd. and Norwood Rd., staff supported the requested variances and waivers. He related that the proposed subdivision is in the country, and that it would be a number of years before there were any road improvements to the two boundary streets for which the applicant was seeking a waiver of improvements. He urged the Commission to recommend approval of the waiver of street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Rd. and Norwood Rd. Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. White for clarification on the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Mr. White responded that Little Rock public water would be extended to the subdivision, and that septic tanks would be the means of wastewater disposal. He said that a pre -annexation agreement would be executed by the developer. Commissioner Adcock confirmed that the proposed private street would be maintained by the developer and the property owners' association, and not be maintained by the City. Commissioner Brandon expressed concern that the "open ditch" street section design could create a dangerously deep ditch along the street. Mr. White responded that the depth of the ditch would be very shallow, with a very minimal flow of stormwater. He said that underground storm drainage would be provided to limit the amount 10 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -410-B of stormwater to use the ditches. He said that the ditches would be mowable. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, confirmed that the area is well outside the City Limits, and that it would not be practical to require short, isolated sections of half street improvements, with underground drainage, along the Pinnacle Valley Rd. and Norwood Rd. frontages of the subdivision. He explained, though, that the Public Works staff would not support a total waiver of boundary street improvements, but that the Public Works staff would like to meet with the developer and develop a plan for using the amount of money which would, if such were required, be spent on half -street boundary street improvements, to make improvements to the shoulders of the boundary streets and the access street. He noted that the existing Pinnacle Valley Rd. is a 24 foot wide street, with no shoulders, and Norwood Rd. is a 20 foot wide "chip -seal" road, again, with no shoulders. This, he stated, is a safety concern, and added that Public Works would like to see "in kind" funds used to improve the shoulders along, perhaps, both sides of the boundary and access street lanes to make them safer. Mr. Bob Alexander, saying that he owns a 5 -acre tract which border the subject tract at the northeast corner of the tract, spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision. He said that approximately 500 feet of the proposed private street would lie on his property within an access easement granted to the subject property developer. He said that he and his neighbor had bought their 5 -acre tracts approximately 7 months ago, and that they had bought the property on the reliance of the "territorial plan" with provides that no tracts of less than 5 acres are to be sold. He said that the agreement under which he and his neighbor had purchased their land had stipulated that homesites would be not less than 5 acres, which would result in no more than 10 homes being able to be built on the applicant's land. He said that he and his neighbor were aware of the access easement which lay on their land, but with the restrictions which were in place, and the limited number of homesites which could be developed, they had proceeded with the purchase and plans for development of the property. He asked that the hearing of the issue be deferred until he had had a chance to discuss the proposed development and its implications with Mr. Rushing, the developer. Ms. Belver Nelson said that she was unaware of the applicant's plans, and would like to know more about the proposed development prior to the Commission's decision. Mr. Joe White, addressing the Commission on the applicant's behalf, asked that the item be withdrawn from further consideration by the Commission. 11 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-410-B Interim Chairperson Ball called the question withdrawal of the item. The withdrawal was vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and WP on approving the approved with the 1 absent. December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S -801-A NAME: WESTROCK OFFICE ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Between Centerview Drive and S. Bowman Road, west of the present end of Executive Center Drive, approximately 0.4 mile south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: WESTROCK PARTNERSHIP Robert Brown C/o David Jones DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 11219 Financial Center Parkway, 10809 Executive Center Dr., Suite 300 Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 172211 Little Rock, AR 72211 225-6018 221-7880 AREA: 56.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 FT. NEW STREET: 1,595 ZONING: 0-1, 0-3, MF -12, PROPOSED USES: General Office R-2, & OS PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Approval of a deferral of the requirement to dedicate right-of-way for and realign Bowman Rd. to the adopted alignment, as provided for in the Master Street Plan. 2. Approval of a waiver of the requirement to construct the full width of Bowman Rd. to Master Street Plan standards, with sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, within the realigned right-of-way. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat of a 56.962 acre tract, to include 8 lots and the construction of approximately 1,595 feet of commercial streets. The lots range in size from one at 2.86 acres to one at 10.38 acres, with the average lot size being 6.51 acres. The lots will have frontages on Centerview Dr., Executive Center Dr., or on Bowman Rd. It is proposed that, with the submitted preliminary plat, Bowman Rd. be left in its existing alignment; that dedication of right-of-way to Minor Arterial Standards (90 feet in width) and construction of a 60 - foot wide Minor Arterial Street for Bowman Rd. be provided. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO: 5-801-A Executive Center Dr., as a standard commercial street, is to be extended from its present termination west of Centerview Dr. to intersect Bowman Rd. Sidewalks are to be provided along both sides of Executive Center Dr. and Bowman Rd. The Phase I construction is to involve development of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 6, with Executive Center Dr. being constructed along the boundary of these lots. Phase II construction is to involve development of Lots 4, 5, and 7, with construction of Bowman Rd. to coincide with the development of these lots. Phase III involves the development of Lot 8, which lies to the west of Bowman Rd. A rezoning application is accompanying the preliminary plat application through the Planning Commission hearing, with the request being to rezone the existing Multi -Family zoned areas to office zoning. There is an existing OS -zoned strip which lies along the south boundary of the tract. It is 200 feet deep for approximately the east half of the tract, and is 130 feet deep for the remaining western portion of the tract. No change in the status of this OS strip is proposed. Because Bowman Rd. is, according to the Master Street Plan, designated to be realigned , and, presumably, the realignment will alter the points where Bowman Rd. meet the existing alignment at the boundaries of the plat area, the applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way and construct Bowman Road along its existing alignment. The right-of-way and roadway construction would meet width standards for a Minor Arterial roadway. When, at some future date, Bowman Rd. is reconstructed in its new alignment, right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated; however, no additional improvements are proposed to be made in conjunction with road construction project. The applicant requests, then, that: 1) the preliminary plat be approved with Bowman Rd. being in its present location, and that a deferral be granted for dedication of right-of-way along its realigned path, and 2) that, when the Bowman Rd. reconstruction project is undertaken, further participation by the applicant in the construction of Bowman Rd. be waived. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -801-A Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for: 1) approval of a deferral of the requirement to dedicate right- of-way for and realign Bowman Rd. to the adopted alignment, as provided for in the Master Street Plan; and, 2) approval of a waiver of the requirement to construct the full width of Bowman Rd. to Master Street Plan standards, with sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, within the realigned right-of-way. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded, and the terrain is fairly level. A temporary "dead end" of Centerview Dr. terminates the street at its west end abutting the proposed subdivision. There is an "Open Space" (OS) zoned strip along the south boundary of the subdivision, abutting the residential subdivision. The site contains 0-1, 0-3, MF -12, R-2, and OS zoning; however, accompanying the subdivision application to the Planning Commission is a rezoning request to change the rezoning of the MF -12 area to 0-1 and 0-3. The R-2 zoned area west of the Bowman Rd. alignment is not included in the rezoning request, and the R-2 zoning of this tract will be retained until the realignment of Bowman Rd. is accomplished. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. The plan must be revised to conform to the adopted Master Street Plan for Bowman Rd. Sidewalks are required on both sides of Bowman Rd. and on Executive Center Dr. A deceleration lane will be required on Bowman Rd. for the turn onto Executive Center Dr. All improvements will be required prior to final plating of lots. One driveway will be allowed for Lot 7. The minimum horizontal curve radii on Executive Center Dr. is 450 feet. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-801-A planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that water main extensions and on-site fire protection will be required. The alignment of Bowman Rd. does not agree with the plan previously approved by the City. If a main is laid in the right-of-way and the right-of-way is relocated in the future, the developer will be responsible for the relocation. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that they will require 15 foot easements along both sides of Executive Center Dr. and along both sides of Bowman Rd. Also, the 10 foot utility easement shown to be dedicated along the west property line is to be a 15 foot easement instead. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to provide information on any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions. It is understood by staff that there is a deed restriction which requires that, once Executive Center Dr. is extended at all, it must be extended to an intersection with Bowman Rd. This restriction provides rationale for having to extend Executive Center Dr. to Bowman Rd., even though Bowman Rd. will eventually have to be realigned. Sec. 31-88 requires that the preliminary plat have a vicinity map shown. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the tract; 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; and, 3) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments. Any proposed phasing of the development is to be indicated. 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • 5-801-A Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed. The shown alignment for Bowman Rd. does not conform to the adopted Master Street Plan alignment. When Bowman Rd. is realigned, the lots abutting the present alignment, and the lot shown west of the present alignment, will be affected. The lot which is shown west of the present alignment will not, when the roadway is realigned, be a developable site. In light of this situation, and in light of the Public Works comments, provision should be made for the future alignment of Bowman Rd., and the lot lines should provide for this alignment. It is anticipated by the developer that the eventual alignment of Bowman Rd. will be such that a construction of a portion of the roadway to the new alignment will not be possible at this time; that the entrance and exit points from the subdivision will not align with the existing alignment. The developer proposes, then, to construct, as part of this subdivision, the full width of Bowman Rd. along the existing alignment to full Minor Arterial roadway width standards, with sidewalks, with the understanding that, eventually, this roadway will be abandoned, and with the understanding that the curve in Bowman Rd. is too tight to meet the Master Street Plan standards for a Minor Arterial roadway. Once Bowman Rd. is to be constructed within its realigned right-of-way, the needed right-of-way would be dedicated and the present right-of-way would be expected to be abandoned to the developer. Since Bowman Rd. will, as part of the subject subdivision, be constructed, a waiver of a requirement to participate in construction of Bowman Rd. within the new alignment is sought. A deferral of the requirement to dedicate right-of-way for Bowman Rd.'s Master Street Plan alignment is sought until the project is undertaken. E. ANALYSIS• There are only minimal and minor deficiencies in the submittal documents, and these deficiencies can be easily remedied by the applicant and project engineering firm. There are, however, real concerns expressed by Public Works concerning the status of Bowman Rd. Public Works notes that the alignment of Bowman Rd. should be shifted to the west boundary of the subdivision to eliminate the sharp curves, and anticipates requiring the developer to construct Bowman Rd. within its Master Street Plan alignment at this time. The developer, however, notes that realigning Bowman Rd. will entail extensive earth moving to go straight through a knoll, and resists having to bear the cost of constructing 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-801-A the full width of Bowman Rd. to Master Street Plan standards. A waiver of this requirement is, therefore, being pursued. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to complying with the Public Works requirements, and subject to the applicant addressing the deficiencies in the submittal information. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. David Jones, representing the applicant, and Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the proposal and reviewed with the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. Brown noted that many of the deficiencies noted had been previously addressed in the submittal documents, but that others would be remedied. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, and Bill Henry, the Traffic Engineer, discussed with Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown the requirements for Bowman Rd. Mr. Jones and Mr. Brown responded that, during the next few days, they would meet with the Public Works staff to discuss the situation. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the item and indicated that the issues discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and noted in the staff "write-up" have, for the most part, been resolved. Staff indicated that the issue of how to treat the alignment of and the requirements for construction of interim improvements on Bowman Rd. have been resolved. Staff noted that the only remaining issue is the amount of improvements which will be required to be provided by the developer in the future alignment, and whether the developer will seek a waiver of these requirements. Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., and Mr. David Jones, with Westrock Partnership, were present. Mr. Brown reported that an agreement had been reached with the Public works staff concerning the alignment and dedication of right-of-way for the Bowman Rd. realignment. He explained that Executive Center Dr. would be extended to and an intersection made with the existing alignment of Bowman Rd. with the first phase of development of the subdivision, and that the developer 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-801-A and the Public Works staff had reached an agreement on the design of the intersection. The intersection will include, he added, limitations on turning movements onto and from Bowman Rd. He explained that the revised preliminary plat eliminates the initially proposed lot west of the present Bowman Rd. alignment, since the Bowman Rd. alignment will be shifted to the west, and no usable land will be available west of the realignment along the west property line. He said that the revised preliminary plat proposes a configuration of lots along the east boundary of the future alignment of Bowman Rd., with the existing alignment of Bowman Rd. bisecting these lots. This existing alignment will, he explained, remain in place, in an access easement which is being provided, until Bowman Rd. in its future right-of-way is constructed. He explained that the easement for the existing alignment of Bowman Rd. will be abandoned when Bowman Rd. is relocated, and, at that time, the lots through which the easement goes will be developable. He reported that the developer and the Public Works staff is negotiating the manner of the required improvements for Bowman Rd. in its new alignment; that, in lieu of building half a street, with curb and gutter on one side, a budget for the required improvements will be developed and an equivalent amount of funds will be expended to provide a usable roadway, probably being a two-lane roadway section, with shoulders. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, confirmed Mr. Brown's comments, but added that, prior the rezoning of the property being heard by the Board of Directors, the right-of-way for Bowman Rd. will have to be dedicated by Quit Claim Deed. He also said that the Public Works staff would reserve the right to continue negotiations with the developer on the type and extent of improvements to Bowman Rd. which will be required for the existing roadway and in the proposed alignment. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question, and the preliminary plat, as amended, was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 7 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S -1010-A NAME: APPLE BLOSSOM SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of Frazier Pike Road, approximately 0.2 mile west of the Zeuber Road intersection. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Woodrow Keown Pat McGetrick COLLEGE STATION MCGETRICK ENGINEERING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 P. O. Box 540 Little Rock, AR 72211 College Station, AR 72053 223-9900 490-0457 AREA: 25.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 58 FT. NEW STREET: 3,500 ZONING: AF PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for a 25.5 acre tract, to include 58 residential lots and construction of 3,500 feet of residential streets. All streets are proposed to be built to standard residential street width (27 feet); however, no sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along those cul-de-sac streets which qualify in length as minor residential streets. A sidewalk, then, is proposed to be constructed only along Apple Ave. The southern and eastern boundary of the tract bound Fourche Bayou, and dedication of the floodway to the City for park area is proposed. (An access easement is to be provided for access from the public street to the floodway/park area.) Some of the lots are within the 100 -year flood plain area, and a minimum floor elevation has been established for homes in this area. The first phase of construction is to involve construction of Apple Ave. from Frazier Pike to the southern limits of Lot 45, and Apple Blossom Cove from Apple Ave. to the western limits of Lot 47, and to develop Lots 60, 61, 45, 46, and 47. Subsequent phases of development will depend on sales of home sites within the first phase. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -1010-A A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. There is a large wooded area along the Fourche Bayou which bounds the subdivision at the south and east. There is a cleared area south of Frazier Pike. Along Fourche Bayou, property is in the designated "floodway", with an area beyond the floodway being "floodplain" property. The subject site is zoned AF (Agriculture and Forestry), as is the land to the west. To the north, across Frazier Pike, is a large I-2 area. To the east, across Zeuber Rd., is a large I-3 zoned tract. To the south, the area is outside the City Limits, and is not zoned. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments: Documentation of the ownership to the right-of-way of Frazier Pike must be provided. Deficiencies in the plat must be addressed. Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to consecution. A BFE of 244' NGVD is established by the City. A SFHA development permit is required, reflecting all FFE's at or above 2451, unless the engineer develops detailed BFE information. (This site is beyond the limits of the detailed study.) Boundary street improvements and right-of-way dedication for Frazier Pike are required. The street names are not acceptable. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1010-A 19 E. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that they will want a 15 foot easement (7 1/2 feet on each side of the pole line) along both sides of all rights-of-way, and note that overhead electric poles will be at the front of the lots, not at the rear. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to furnish: 1) the source of title for the owner, giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) the average and minimum lot sizes; and, 3) any existing covenants and restrictions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the tract; 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 3) the names of all recorded subdivisions abutting the site, with plat book and page number or instrument number shown, the names of all owners of unplatted tracts abutting the site, and the names of all owners of platted tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 4) the physical description of all monuments, to include the type of material and size of the monuments; 5) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments; and, 6) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas. The "AF" (Agricultural and Forestry) zoning district permits single-family developments. ANALYSIS• There are only minor deficiencies noted in the submitted plat and submittal information. These are minor in nature and can be remedied by the project engineer prior to final approval of the preliminary plat. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Continued) FILE NO.: S -1010-A F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the features of the proposed subdivision, and reviewed with the Committee members and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments with Mr. McGetrick, and there was a discussion on there not being a need to extend Apple Ave., as shown on the plat, to the boundary of the subdivision, as a collector street. Instead, Public Works related, the street can be a standard residential street, with a cul-de-sac at its southwest termination. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would make this change. He also related that all information noted as being needed or deficient would be provided. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that there were no that the applicant was seeking no included on the Consent Agenda for plat was approved with the vote of and 1 absent. 4 (DECEMBER 12, 1995) issues to be resolved, noting variances. The item was approval, and the preliminary 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions; December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO • S-1085 NAME: BOEN ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the north side of Col. Glenn Road, approximately 0.1 mile west of Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick LEONARD BOEN MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11600 Otter Creek South 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72103 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-0004 223-9900 AREA: 9.32 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-1 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouses Office warehouse The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a two -lot subdivision on a 9.32 acre tract. Each of the lots is to be approximately 4.5 acres is size. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Col. Glenn Rd. along the southern boundary of the subdivision, to provide a minimum of 55 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline of Col. Glenn Rd. is proposed, as is construction of one-half street improvements to Principal Arterial Roadway standards. A sidewalk is to be constructed along the Col. Glenn Rd. frontage of the tract. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. No variances are requested. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1085 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The site rises in topography from an elevation of 320 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the southeast corner of the tract, to 360 feet, MSL, at the northwest corner, a 40 foot differential within 940 feet, or a 4% average grade across the site. Grades range, however, up to 9%, with a 6% grade being the median grade on the site. The site is zoned I-1. There is a C-2 site immediately to the west, and is the location of the Sam's Club building. The remaining property to the east, south, and north is zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Bagley's shows this as Tract A to C of Shepards Addition. The legal description must be corrected. There appears to be access used for parcels on the east perimeter. If this is a public street, then boundary street improvements will be required. The question of the status of this access must be addressed. Deficient information and needed corrections in the preliminary plat must be addressed. Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Col. Glenn Rd. is a Principal Arterial. The Master Street Plan required right-of-way is 55 feet from centerline Construction of one-half street improvements, in including a sidewalk, on Col. Glenn Rd. is required. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1085 Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objections to the layout, providing that no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to furnish: 1) the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed book and page number or instrument number; and 2) any existing covenants and restrictions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the tract; 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 3) the physical description of all monuments, to include the type of material and size of the monuments; and, 4) the zoning classifications of abutting areas. Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed. Sec. 31-201 requires that, when a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer is to provide the minimum of one-half of the required Master Street Plan right-of-way and improvements. Sec. 36-319 requires that lots in I-1 zoned subdivisions be at least 1 acre is size; that the front building setback line be set at least 70 feet off the right-of-way; that the side yards are to be at least 30 feet in width; and that the rear yard setback be at least 40 feet from the lot line. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in the submittal information and on the plat are minimal, and these can easily be provided prior to approval of the preliminary plat by staff. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1085 The applicant proposes to comply with all Master Street Plan requirements for dedication of right-of-way and street and sidewalk improvements. The preliminary plat shows a 40 foot front building line. The requirement in the I-1 zoning district is for a 70 foot front building line. Either the front building line needs to be corrected, or the applicant needs to seek a variance from this requirement. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant remedying all deficiencies, including correcting the front building line or seeking and gaining approval for a front building line setback variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the requested subdivision approval, and reviewed with the applicant and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments, especially concerning the requirement that Col. Glenn Rd. is a Principal Arterial, not a Minor Arterial, as shown on the proposed plat. This, he related, would require additional right-of-way be dedicated, and would require construction of a different classification of street than was proposed. Mr. McGetrick responded that the needed corrections would be made. He also responded that he would address the status of the access drive abutting the property to the east. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the preliminary plat has a 40 foot front building setback line shown on the plat, and noted that, in the I-1 zoning district, a 70 foot building setback line is required. Staff explained that either the building setback line needs to be relocated to be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, or the applicant needs to request a variance. Staff recommended, if the applicant amended his request to include a variance on the front building setback line, a 50 foot building setback line in lieu of the 70 foot required by the Ordinance. 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1085 Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. He presented the applicant's requested preliminary plat, and amended the application to include a request for a 50 foot front building setback line. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question, and the preliminary plat, as amended, was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 absent. k, December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: S -1086 NAME: POMONA ADDITION, LOTS A, B, C,& D -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: On the north side of Col. Glenn Road, approximately 2 miles west of the Cooper Orbit Road intersection and 3.75 mile west of I-430, outside the City Limits DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick CAROLYN RUSSELL MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 14100 Napoleon Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-1944 223-9900 AREA: 6.03 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: N/A STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has withdrawn her request for consideration of a preliminary plat, as reflected in a letter from the project engineer dated November 30, 1995. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal of the application without prejudice. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 30, 1995, asking that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. Staff recommends approval of the December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1086 withdrawal. The item was included withdrawal, and was approved with 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. E on the Consent Agenda for the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5-A FILE NO.: 5-142-A NAME: MEDICAL PLAZA WEST ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Rodney Parham Road DEVELOPER: St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center c/o Ron Tabor FLAKE, TABOR, TUCKER, WELLS, & KELLY P. O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-8005 AREA: 7.26 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 ENGINEER• Joe White WHITE -RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-3 PROPOSED USES: Clinic and Professional Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide internal vehicle circulation. 2. Approval of a variance from the requirement for a common access drive in an access easement meet City street standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for a 7.3 acre tract to include 5 lots for development of clinic and professional office facilities. Two of the lots are to be slightly over 2 acres in size, each; two of the remaining three lots are to be approximately 1 acre, each, with the remaining lot to be approximately 2/3 acre. A common access easement is proposed to be platted to provide internal access to each of the lots from a planned drive access off Rodney Parham Rd. A deceleration lane is to be constructed at the common access drive off Rodney Parham Rd.; half street improvements to commercial street standards are to be provided along the Woodland Heights Rd. boundary of the December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Continued) FILE NO.: S -142-A tract. Sidewalks are to be constructed along each of the three boundary streets: Woodland Heights Rd., Cantrell Rd., and Rodney Parham Rd. Compliance with the Highway 10 Design Overlay District regulations for 100 foot building setbacks and a 40 foot landscape buffer along Cantrell Rd. are to be adhered to. Shared access drives for future access from Cantrell Rd. to the three lots with Cantrell Rd. frontage will be provided. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for variance from the requirement that a common access drive in an access easement is to meet City street construction standards, and permit the common access drive to be constructed to driveway standards. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, with a mixture of cleared and wooded and overgrown areas within the site. There is an average topographic grade across the site of approximately 7%. The site is zoned 0-3. There is a large 0-2 tract across Rodney Parham Rd. to the east; an R-2 area to the west, at the northwest corner of the tract and across Woodland Height Rd.; an R-2 area to the south, which is the location of the Christ The King Catholic Church. Across Cantrell Rd., to the north, is R-2 land, which is the location of the Trinity Assembly of God Church. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial subdivision, the drive in the access easement should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking should not be such that the backing movement would be into the entrance drives. This drive can be 27 feet in width and should have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. Sidewalks are required to be provided on both sides of the drive. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Continued) FILE NO.: S -142-A The northeast lot shall not take access from Cantrell Rd. If access is needed from Cantrell Rd., the adjacent two lots shall use a common access driveway. Right-of-way shall be dedicated along Woodland Heights Rd. to 30 feet from centerline, and one-half of commercial street improvements, with a sidewalk, shall be constructed along the Woodland Heights Rd. boundary of the site. A 6 foot sidewalk along Cantrell Rd. is required to be constructed. Right-of-way along Cantrell Rd., to 55 feet from centerline, is required, and must be verified as being in place or must be dedicated. Right-of-way dedication along Rodney Parham Rd., to 45 feet from centerline, is to be provided, and a 20 foot radial dedication at the corner is required. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. A PRZ backflow prevention device will be required on domestic service. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement around the entire outer perimeter of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require 10 foot easements along the residential property at the northwest corner of the tract, and at the southwest corner of the tract. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the site is subject to the requirements of the Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building sites, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements shall be indicated on the plat and shall be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance K3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Continued) FILE NO • S -142-A from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. The plat shows a private access easement; however, the applicant does not propose to meet the public street standards. A variance from this requirement is requested. The plat shows the street name to be "Woodland Road". The street is "Woodland Heights Rd." Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) indicate the type of subdivision which is being proposed; 2) provide the address of the owner of record and the source of title, giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 3) indicate the average and minimum lot sizes; 4) furnish information on any existing covenants and restrictions; and, 5) state the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) contours at not more than 2 foot intervals for terrain with slopes of less than 10a (The contours shown are at 5 foot intervals.); 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 3) the names of owners of all land which abut the proposed subdivision; 4) the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number; 5) accurate locations and adequate physical descriptions of all monuments, showing the size and type of material of all monuments; 6) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas; 7) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments; and 8) any proposed phasing of the development. E. ANALYSIS: The preliminary plat substantially meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The noted deficiencies are minimal, and can be addressed by the project engineer prior to final approval of the plat. The access easement, as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, is shown on the plat, and this is not an issue. The applicant, however, proposes to construct a driveway within the access easement, and requests a variance from the requirement that this driveway be constructed to City commercial street standards, with a cul-de-sac or other turn -around device at the termination of the drive, and sidewalks along both frontages. Public works can support a 27 foot wide private street, but reports that a proper turn - 0 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Continued) FILE NO.: S -142-A around, within the easement, at the northwest termination of the easement needs to be provided. Public Works cannot support a wavier of the sidewalk requirement. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and of the private access easement for internal circulation. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance which will permit the construction of the private street without a proper turn -around device and without sidewalks. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Ron Tabor, representing the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a site plan review application, but that, because the application was for one building on a single tract, thus not requiring Subdivision Site Plan Review, and that the 0-3 zoning district does not require site plan review, the application needed to be withdrawn. Alternatively, if the applicant needed to assure that multiple buildings would be permitted to be constructed on the 7.3 acre tract, a multiple lot preliminary plat needed to be substituted for the site plan review drawing. The applicant responded that this latter alternative would be pursued. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works comments, and the requirements for half street improvements on Rodney Parham Rd. and Woodland Heights Rd. were discussed. The Committee forwarded the application, with the understanding that it would be amended to a preliminary plat application, to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved; that the applicant had agreed to do the required boundary street improvements along Rodney Parham Rd., Cantrell Rd., and Woodland Heights Rd., and that no variances were being requested. Staff noted that the Ordinance provides that, when a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of a Public Street, and that the applicant was requesting such a service easement. 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-A (Continued) FILE NO.: S -142-A Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and of the service easement. Approval of the preliminary plat and of the service easement were included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and were approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. M December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5-B FILE NO.: S -285-X NAME: THE RANCH, TRACT "B" -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Cantrell Road and Ranch Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ed Willis Joe White FINANCIAL CENTRE CORPORATION WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. 0. Box 56350 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 26 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 470 ZONING: C-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: General Retail and Offices 1. Approval of a private commercial street in a common access easement. 2. Approval of a deferral from the requirement that the private commercial street have a sidewalk along both frontages of the street, to permit construction of the sidewalk along the south frontage of the street to be deferred until the property to the south is developed. 3. Approval of a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve in excess of five acres, as limited by the Subdivision Regulations. 4. Approval of a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. until the portion of the subdivision which abuts Cantrell Rd. is developed. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat of a 26 acre tract for the development, initially, of three commercial lots encompassing approximately 4.5 acres of the land, plus the designation of a "Tract" for future development. Lot B-1 is to encompass 1.1 a � December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-X acres; Lot B-2 is 1.4 acres is area; and, Lot B-3 contains 2.0 acres. Access to the three lots which constitute the Phase I Development is to be taken by way of a private commercial street off Ranch Blvd. and by a common drive access off Ranch Dr. The applicant proposes a deferral from the requirement that the private commercial street have a sidewalk along both frontages of the street, to permit construction of the sidewalk along the north frontage of the street with the Phase I development and construction of the sidewalk along the south frontage of the street to be deferred until the property to the south is developed. The applicant proposes a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve the 26 acre commercial subdivision, in lieu of the five acres as limited by the Subdivision Regulations for such streets. The applicant proposes a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. until the portion of the subdivision which abuts Cantrell Rd. is developed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is requested. Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a private commercial street in a common access easement is requested. Review and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for: 1) a deferral from the requirement that the private commercial street have a sidewalk along both frontages of the street, to permit construction of the sidewalk along the south frontage of the street to be deferred until the property to the south is developed; 2) a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve in excess of five acres, as limited by the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3) a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. until the portion of the subdivision which abuts Cantrell Rd. is developed. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, except for a barn and accessory buildings and fencing associated with the ranch use of the site prior to development of the area. The site is former pasture land, and has only scattered trees. The topography 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO.: S -285-X ranges from an elevation of approximately 278 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the west boundary of the tract, to an elevation of 310 feet at a point approximately two-thirds of the distance to the west boundary line, close to the existing barn, then, back to an elevation of approximately 278-280 feet at the west property line. The existing zoning of the tract is C-2, and is in The Ranch development. Property to the east across Ranch Dr., is zoned 0-2; to the northeast, across Ranch Dr., is Leisure Arts in a POD. To the north, across Ranch Dr., is an MF -18 tract. Across Ranch Dr., at the northeast corner Ranch Dr. and Ranch Blvd. is an 0-2 site. Across Ranch Blvd. to the west is a large 0-2 tract. South of the site, across Cantrell Rd., is a large R-2 district. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat (Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)). A deceleration lane must be constructed on Cantrell Rd., with additional right-of-way being required. AHTD permits are required. Sidewalks are required along all boundary streets. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer is available, with no adverse effect to the system from the proposed development. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along all four sides of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal The Little Rock Fire Department commented that an additional fire hydrant will be required at the west side of the site. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-285-X D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) indicate the type of subdivision which is being proposed; 2) indicate the average and minimum lot sizes; 3) furnish information on any existing covenants and restrictions; and, 4) state the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 3) the names of owners of all land which abut the proposed subdivision, including across streets; 4) the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number; 5) accurate locations and adequate physical descriptions of all monuments, showing the size and type of material of all monuments; 6) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas; and, 7) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be provided with the application. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements shall be indicated on the plat and shall be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board. Sec. 31-207 provides that private streets are permissible only in the form of cull -de -sac and short loop streets where the development served contains less than 5 acres, and only if the design can serve all public service vehicles. The subdivider is to provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets and utility facilities in the Bill of Assurance. The applicant has requested approval of a private street in an access easement, but requests approval of a variance from the requirement that the street be built to standard residential street standards. Sec. 31-202 restricts culs-de-sac to a maximum length of 1,000 feet, and Sec. 31-2 defines a loop street as one that intersects the same street twice with a °T° intersection. 0 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO • S -285-X E. F. The applicant has requested approval of a private street in an access easement for interior circulation, and proposes to construct the private street to Public works requirements. The applicant requests, however, a deferral from the requirement that the sidewalk be required to be constructed along the south frontage of the street until the property to the south is developed. The applicant requests a a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve in excess of 5 acres, as limited by Sec. 31-207. The applicant requests approval of a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. until the portion of the subdivision which abuts Cantrell Rd. is developed. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in the plat and the submitted information are minimal, and can be furnished by the project engineering firm prior to staff approval of the file copy of the preliminary plat. The route of the proposed private interior street is not shown beyond the eastern limits of the first phase development. Note that a private street may be only a cul- de-sac or loop street, and may not be a through street connecting two public streets. The developer needs to note this limitation when future development is planned. The site is a 26 acre tract, bounded on all four sides by public streets. The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve in excess of 5 acres. As long as this private street conforms to the requirement that it be a cul-de-sac or loop street, and that it meet the requirements for length of a cul-de-sac street (1,000 feet), then the area served will be limited to approximately one-half of the site, or 13 acres. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant remedying the deficiencies noted. Staff recommends approval of the private commercial street in a common access easement, subject to the applicant noting the limitations on design and length cited. 5 1 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO • S -285-X Staff recommends approval of a deferral from the requirement that the private commercial street have a sidewalk along both frontages of the street initially, to permit construction of the sidewalk along the south frontage of the street to be deferred until the property to the south is developed. Staff recommends approval of a variance to permit the private commercial street to serve in excess of 5 acres, again, subject to the applicant noting the limitations on design and length cited. Staff recommends approval of a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. until the portion of the subdivision which abuts Cantrell Rd. is developed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Bob Schultz and Mr. Ed Willis, the applicants, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. The applicant had submitted a plan for site plan review of the Saddle Creek Center, as required due to the site being zoned C-2. Staff pointed out that a subdivision was being created from a larger tract, and that, either the site for the Saddle Creek Center needed to be increased to 5 acres, or a preliminary plat of the entire 26 acres needed to be presented. Mr. White responded that he would prepare a preliminary plat for submission to staff. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, commented on the private street which was being requested, and noted the Public Works comments concerning the requirements for construction of the street and sidewalks. The applicant indicated that some variances and deferrals would be requested concerning the sidewalks, deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd., and for the area to be served by the private street. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing, with the understanding that the applicant would present a preliminary plat to staff for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that a revised preliminary plat had been submitted which addressed the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the agenda "write-up". Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat. 6 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5-B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-285-X Staff reported that the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a private commercial street in a common access easement, and that such a private street was requested as part of the application. Staff recommended approval of the requested private commercial street along the south boundary of the subdivision. Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that private commercial streets have sidewalks constructed along both sides of these street; that the applicant has agreed to construct the required sidewalks, but asks that construction of the sidewalk along the south side of the street be deferred until development of the phase which will abut this side of the street. The Public Works staff noted that such a phased construction of the sidewalk will be permitted and that a specific deferral by the Board of Directors for it will not be required. Staff noted that the Ordinance limits private commercial streets to serve land areas of 5 acres or less, and, since the land area to be served by the proposed private street is 26 acres, a variance from this provision is required to be approved by the Board of Directors. Staff recommended approval of the variance in the maximum land area permitted to be served by the commercial street, subject to the street be limited to a cul-de-sac street serving no more than approximately one-half the land area. Staff noted that the applicant had requested a deferral of the requirement to construct a deceleration lane on Cantrell Rd. with the phase of development under consideration. The Public Works staff noted that such a deferral was permissible; that the Public Works staff will permit its construction with the next phase of development of the abutting property. Approval of the preliminary plat and of the private commercial street, and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors of a variance from the limitation on the maximum area permitted to be served by a private commercial street were included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and were approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 0 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -2390-C NAME: CAMBRIDGE PLACE ADDITION, LOTS 10-13 -- AMENDED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the north side of Pleasant Valley Drive, with I-430 abutting the site on the west, lying approximately 0.1 mile west of Cambridge Place Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• John McKay, Jr. Forrest C. Marlar, Jr. PARHAM PROPERTIES MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. #1 Cambridge Place 5318 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72212 North Little Rock, AR 72216 228-0001 753-1987 AREA: 2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: POD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: General and Professional Offices 1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide access to Lots 2 through 4. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards. 3) Approval of a waiver from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 16,082, passed by the Board of Directors on August 20, 1991, established the CAMBRIDGE PLACE ADDITION -- SHORT -FORM POD (Z -2390-B). This followed a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission at the July 30, 1991 Commission meeting. The POD which was established was for a 4 -acre tract, and included 9 lots facing Cambridge Place Dr. for single-family residences, plus 2 lots for office development on a 2 -acre portion of the site. The office development was to contain two, December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C 2 -story office buildings of 10,000 square feet each. One of the lots was to have frontage on Pleasant Valley Dr.; the second lot was to have access provided by way of an access easement across the first lot. A private drive, with head -in parking spaces off the interior drives, provided interior vehicular circulation. Parking for 128 vehicles was to be provided. The approved POD required that: 1) a 30 foot buffer along Pleasant Valley Dr. is to be provided; 2) two landscape islands at the entryway and islands along the eastern parking lot are to be provided to retain existing trees; 3) the three permitted signs are to be mounted on the brick walls and are not to exceed 3 feet by 12 feet in size; 4) access to the private drive is to be restricted by installation of a code operated security gate; 5) the building setback line off Pleasant Valley Dr. is to be 107 feet; and, 6) in lieu of a sidewalk along Pleasant valley Dr., a sidewalk was to be installed along the Cambridge Place Dr. frontage of the POD site. Lots 1 through 9 have been developed, and single-family homes occupy each of the lots. The two office lots on the west 2 -acres of the site have not been developed, and are the subject of the Amended POD application being considered. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an Amended POD in order to develop four, single -story, 4200 square foot, office buildings on four lots, in lieu of the two, 2 -story, 10,000 square foot office buildings on two lots previously approved. As was the situation in the approved POD plan, one lot is to have frontage on Pleasant Valley Dr.; three interior lots are to take access to Pleasant Valley Dr. by way of a private drive in an access easement. In lieu of the 107 foot building setback off Pleasant Valley Dr., as originally proposed, a 100 foot building setback is substituted. The entrance is to be gated; the drive is proposed to be constructed to driveway standards, and head -in parking off the drive is proposed. Parking for 87 vehicles is to be provided. A cross -access easement is to be established for the mutual use of the parking spaces within the site by all tenants and clients. Retention is requested of the option to extend the access easement from the northern extremity of the drive, along the west property line of the existing Lot 9, to the private drive in the access easement which lies at the front of Lots 7 through 9. Two dumpsters, one at the southern -most building and one at the northern -most building, will be shared by the users of the four buildings. The number and type of signage is not changed from the approved POD plan: three brick wall -mounted signs, two at 2 December 1�,, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C the entrance gate and one at the northern -most corner of the property. The size of the sign, however, is proposed to be increased to 4 feet by 12 feet maximum, each. As was approved in the original POD, construction of a sidewalk along the Pleasant Valley Dr. frontage of the site is not anticipated. As was approved in the original POD, access to the development is proposed to be by way of a private drive in an access easement, and approval of a variance to permit this type access is requested. Also, approval is requested of a variance from the requirement for the private drive in the access easement meet City street standards, and, instead, to permit the drive to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives. Additionally, approval of a waiver is requested from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Office Development, with access to be provided by a private drive in an access easement. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards, to permit the drives in the access easement to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for variance from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped. There are scattered large trees on the site, and the topography rises approximately 30 feet in the nearly 700 feet of depth, south to north. The existing zoning of the 2 -acre tract is POD, with the remainder of the originally approved POD site abutting the site to the east and north. This abutting 2 -acre tract was approved for, and has built on 9 lots, single-family detached homes. Across Pleasant Valley Dr. to the south is all R-2 zoned land. I-430 abuts the site to the west. K December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial development, the access should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking should not be such that the backing movement would be into the entrance drive. The drive can be 27 feet and have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. Sidewalks are required to be constructed along both sides of the drive. A sidewalk will be required to be constructed along the Pleasant Valley Dr. frontage of the site. Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to constriction. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref„ Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that an additional easement and water main extension will be required to serve the lots which do not have frontage on Pleasant Valley Dr. The Fire Department will need to re-evaluate the fire protection, since the original plan did not have a building so far to the north, away from the fire hydrant on Pleasant Valley Dr. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that no buildings or other permanent structures may be built in the Utility Easement. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department commented that an additional fire hydrant will be required at the north end of the property. El December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the Rodney Parham District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multifamily" use of the site. Since the request is a modification of an existing, previously approved, mixed residential and office planned development, and the mixed use character of the development does not change with this proposal, the Planning staff does not recommend a Plan amendment. Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where an office development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements shall be indicated on the plat and shall be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant requests approval of a private drive in an access easement, and requests a variance from the requirement that the drive meet City street design standards. The applicant also requests approval of a waiver from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line. Parking requirements for office uses is 1 space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Proposed is four, 4200 square foot office buildings. According to the regulations, 42 spaces are required; 87 spaces are provided. The Plans Review Specialist notes that: The areas set aside for buffers meet Ordinance requirements; however, since there are separate lots, then the Landscape Ordinance will require a 6 foot wide landscaping strip, exclusive of ingress and egress drive easement, along each of these lot lines. The Landscape Ordinance requires that 6% of the vehicular use area be landscaped with interior islands, with each lot being considered separately. 9 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C E. ANALYSIS• The site plan and information required to be submitted are substantially complete. The applicant has requested approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide interior vehicular circulation within the project site, and requests approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement meet City street standards. The applicant has indicated that the entire drive/parking area will be shown as a common access easement, with cross -access among the lots being provided for in the Bill of Assurance and maintained by the Property Owner's Association. This impacts the Public Works analysis of the need to require that the private drive meet City street standards. Instead of two larger lots, the applicant is proposing four smaller lots, and, instead of two, 2 -story office buildings of 10,000 square feet each, he is proposing four, single - story, 4,200 square foot buildings. This change will have less impact on the residential homes abutting the site to the east thatn the original approved development plan. The waiver of the sidewalk along Pleasant Valley Dr. was granted in the original POD ordinance, passed in 1991, and no change in this portion of the POD is requested. Because of the location of an existing fire hydrant (in the middle of the proposed drive island), the applicant seeks approval of a waiver from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line to permit the wide sweeping drive entrance to the site. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended planned development site plan. Staff recommends approval of the proposed private drive and parking areas in an access easement to be inclusive of all drive and parking areas. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the requirement for the drive in the access easement meet City street standards. 0 December 1;6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirement that drive returns not extend beyond the extension of lot lines, in order for the eastern drive return to extend beyond the east lot line. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. John McKay, the applicant, and Mr. Jim Finch, were present. Staff outlined the proposed amended POD and reviewed with the applicant and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee members discussed the various comments with Misters McKay and Finch. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed with Mr. McKay the requirements noted by Public Works. Mr. McKay indicated that he would need to bring his engineer, Forrest Marlar, in for a meeting with staff to discuss further the implications the requirements would have on the development. He pointed out that, instead of two lots, he was proposing four smaller lots, and that, instead of two, 2 - story office buildings of 10,000 square feet each, he was proposing four, single -story, 4,200 square foot buildings. He reported that this proposal would have less negative impact on the residential homes he had developed on the abutting property within the POD, and that the homeowners were supportive of this change. He reported that he had already built the brick wall which separates the office portion of the project from the residential portion. With the assurance from Mr. McKay that he would meet with staff to work out cited problems and concerns, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved; that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the staff "write-up". Staff noted that the Ordinance provides that, when a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of a Public Street and that the applicant had requested such a service easement. Staff noted that the entire internal drive -parking area is to be within the access easement and the maintenance of the drive -parking area is to be provided for in the Bill of Assurance. Staff reported that the proposed internal drive design meets with Public Works requirements, and recommended approval of the private internalized vehicle circulation system. 7 December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -2390-C Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that improvements within access easements meet public street standards, and that the applicant requested a variance from this requirement to permit the improvements to be to private drive and parking lot standards, and without sidewalks along both sides of the drive. Staff recommended approval of this requested variance. Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that drive returns at access points not extend beyond the extension of the common lot line with the abutting lot. Staff explained that, in the case under consideration, because the access drive is located in the Water Utility easement, and there is a fire hydrant in the middle of the easement, the access drive approach must have a divided entrance with wide flare returns which causes the east return to extend beyond the lot line extension. Staff reported that, since the owner of the abutting lot does not take access on Pleasant Valley Dr., and since the owner of this lot has submitted a letter agreeing to the location of the approach apron, staff recommended approval of a variance from this provision. Mr. Howard Moum, saying that he was a resident of Cambridge Place Dr. and of the property owners' association, asked for assurance that construction of the office buildings would not involve deliveries onto Cambridge Place Dr., and that, if damage to this street results from such deliveries, the developer would be responsible for any needed repairs. Mr. McKay responded that all deliveries would be from Pleasant Valley Dr., that no access would be taken from Cambridge Place Dr. The requested recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors for an amended POD, with an internalized vehicle access circulation system in a private service easement, as well as the requested variances from: 1) the requirement that the private drive meet public street standards, with sidewalks along both sides of the street; and 2) the requirement that the eastern drive approach apron return not extend beyond the extension of the common lot property line, were included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and were approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -4859-C NAME: DEAN'S -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bowman Road, approximately 700 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• HAROLD SMITH 18201 Lawson Rd. Little Rock, AR 376-1799 AREA: 2.17 ACRES ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 72210 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: General Offices; Warehousing PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide access to Lot 2. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a POD in order to divide a 2 -acre tract into two approximately 1 -acre lots. On the eastern -most lot, the applicant proposes to continue using the existing residential building which lies off S. Bowman Rd. for his "Dean's Coffee Service" business and to construct a 5,000 square foot building at the rear/west side of the lot for storage of goods used in his business. The western -most lot is proposed to be sold and developed with a 10,440 square foot office building. A 25 foot deep "undisturbed" buffer is proposed along the west property line, as is retention of many of the large hardwood trees on the site. Access to the rear/west lot is to be provided by way of a private drive in an access easement, and approval of the proposed private drive in the access easement is requested. Additionally, the drive is proposed to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking being provided off the drives, and a December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C variance is requested from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards and the restriction on head -in parking off the drive. Parking for 8 vehicles is proposed to be provided on Lot 1; parking for 27 vehicles is proposed for Lot 2. Additional right-of-way for S. Bowman Rd. is proposed to be dedicated, and payment to the City of the cost of constructing one-half of the required improvements to S. Bowman Rd. is to be made. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Office Development, with access to Lot 2 to be provided by a private drive in an access easement. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards, to permit the private drive in the access easement to be constructed to driveway standards, with head -in parking off the drives. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a residential structure immediately off S. Bowman Rd. which is used for the offices the Dean's Coffee Service business. Otherwise, the site is undeveloped. The area to the rear, however, has been cleared in preparation for construction. The property rises in elevation from 97 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) along S. Bowman Rd. to 117 feet at the west property line, an average grade of 3%. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 being the zoning of land to the south and west, as well along the northeast one-half of the site and across S. Bowman Rd. to the east. It is noted, though, that the ice/roller skating rink in directly across the street, and is a non -conforming use in the R-2 zoning district. Along the northwest half of the property is a PCD zone. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. E December 1:e., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial development, the access should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking should not be such that the backing movement would be into the entrance drive. This drive can be 27 feet in width and have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. Sidewalks on both sides of the drive are required. Right-of-way along Bowman Rd. is required to be 45 feet from the existing centerline. One-half street improvements will be required along Bowman Rd. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension and private fire hydrant will be required to serve Lot 2. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extensions, with an easement, is required to serve the west/rear lot. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the west, north, east, and part of the south property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department commented that all drives should be a minimum of 20 feet in width at all points. The Fire Department noted that fire hydrants are not shown on the site plan, but must be placed inn compliance with the Ordinance standards. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the Ellis Mountain District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multifamily". The proposed use for the site is 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C "Office". Due to recent changes in the Land Use Plan in areas to the east and southeast, the proposed "Office" use of the property is in conformance with the developing land use of the area. Designating the area as "Transition Zone" ("TZ") would permit multifamily, residential, or office uses in the area, and staff recommends a change in the Land Use Plan for this site and the land to the south to "Transition Zone" ("TZ"). Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a development abuts a public street, the developer is to provide the minimum of one-half the required Master Street Plan improvements. Sidewalks are required along the boundary street associated with an office development. The applicant has indicated that he proposes to dedicate the required right-of-way along Bowman Rd., and is prepared to pay "in -lieu" funds with the City for Bowman Rd. improvements. Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements is to be indicated on the plat and the improvements are to be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. The applicant has requested such a variance in order for the private drive to be constructed to driveway standards, that no turn -around device be required, and that the parking spaces may back onto the drives. Parking requirements for office uses is one space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet of building size, then, for space over 10,000 square feet (up to 20,000 square feet), the parking requirement is 95% of the basic requirement. Parking requirements for warehouse uses are one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, plus five spaces. The eastern -most new building is a 4,400 square feet building to be used for storage. Seven spaces are required by the regulations to be provided for this use; four are provided. The existing building, which is shown to remain, is an office or general business use. The parking for this building would range from three to four spaces; four are provided. with the rear 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C building being 10,440 square foot office use, 26 parking spaces are required. The total parking provided on the western -most building is 27 spaces; The location and plan for any signage must be specified and shown. The Plans Review Specialist notes that: Portions of the northern and southern site perimeters do not provide for the 6 foot wide landscape strips required by the Landscape Ordinance. Also, a section of the southern drive projects over the 7 foot wide land use buffer which is required (6 foot minimum with transfer). Curb and gutter, or other approved border, is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the front two-thirds of the northern site perimeter and along the entire southern and eastern sides of the property. Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) furnish the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) furnish information on the lot sizes; and, 3) provide information on any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) minimum building front yard setback lines; 2) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all water courses entering and leaving the tract; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 4) the date of the survey; 5) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all abutting subdivisions, and the names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision; 6) an adequate physical description of all monuments, to include the type of material and size of the monuments; and, 7) the zoning classifications of all abutting areas. Any proposed phasing of the development is to be indicated. Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. ki December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat submission has only minor deficiencies which can be submitted by the engineer for staff approval following Planning Commission approval of the plat. The rear lot does not have the required frontage on a public street, and a private access easement and private drive are requested to provide needed access. With the four acre site and two lots, the requirements that a private drive for non- residential uses not serve in excess of 5 acres is met. The POD site plan showing a driveway standard access drive, with no turn -around device within the access easement and with head -in parking off the drive is not in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant, has, however, requested a variance from these requirements. The parking which is provided, as far as the number of spaces is conerned, meets the Ordinance requirements. The Fire Department has noted that all drives must be at least 20 feet in width. The applicant has, in attempting to retain many of the large hardwood trees, proposed 12 foot wide, one-way drives through the trees around the rear building. Consultation with the Fire Marshall needs to be had in order to determine what will be required for needed access by the Fire Department to three sides of the building. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD, and approval of the access easement to provide the required access to Lot 2. Staff recommends denial of the driveway, without a turn- around device, with head -in parking off the drive, and without a sidewalk along both sides of the drive. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Harold Smith, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the requested POD, and presented the submitted preliminary plat and POD site plan. The various comments contained in the discussion outline were reviewed with Mr. Smith, Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, reviewed with the applicant and his 0 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4859-C engineer the requirements for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Master Street Plan. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the deficiencies would be addressed, but that a variance from the requirement to construct the interior drive to City street standards would be pursued. Mr. Smith complained that the regulations were too harsh, and made a small development financially impractical to implement. Mr. Smith and Mr. McGetrick indicated that further meetings with staff and with Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the project architect, would be needed in order to determine how to address the various comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated November 30, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Subdivision agenda of January 30, 1996. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 7 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -5038-B NAME: SEVEN ACRES BUSINESS PARK -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Cantrell Road, approximately 0.3 mile east of west Taylor Loop Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jeff Hathaway, Agent Joe White THE HATHAWAY GROUP WHITE -RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 663-5400 374-1666 AREA: 7.0821 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 500 ZONING: POD PROPOSED USES: Auto painting and body rebuilding shop; office; office-showroom/warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The Seven Acres Business Park was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,319, passed on December 15, 1992. This followed a recommendation of approval by the Planing Commission on November 3, 1992. The approved POD restricts commercial uses (explained as "over-the-counter sales") to only Lot 1, and provided that the commercial area of the building on Lot 1 would be limited to 4,000 square feet. All other buildings would be limited to "office-showroom/warehouse uses, and any area of the building on Lot 1 in excess of the 4,000 square feet would be limited to office uses. The building on Lot 1 was shown as 60 foot deep by 220 foot long; on Lot 2 the building was to be 72 foot deep by 190 foot long; on Lot 3 the building was to be 72 foot deep by 120 foot long. Two buildings were shown on Lot 4, one 92 feet deep by 90 feet long; the other a total of 62 feet deep by 100 feet long. Each of these buildings on Lots 2 through 4 were to be used for office- showroom/warehousing. An undisturbed buffer along the west property line, 80 feet wide at the Lot 1 parking area, and 50 feet wide along the reminder of Lot 1 and along the Lot 2 property line, is shown on the approved site plan. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z 5038 B STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amended planned office development to change the use mix of the approved POD from limited "over-the- counter sales"/commercial, plus office and office -showroom/ warehousing to substitute an auto painting and body rebuilding shop for the office-showroom/warehousing use approved for Lot 2. Golden Collision Center is proposed to occupy a 9,238 square foot building (with overall dimensions of 86 feet deep by 125 feet long) in place of the 72 foot deep by 190 foot long (13,680 square foot) office-showroom/warehouse use which is approved for the lot. in lieu of the building being 85 feet off the west property line, the proposed building is to be 122 feet of the west property line. The undisturbed buffer, however, is omitted from Lot 2, and a 15 foot wide landscape buffer is substituted. A opaque privacy fence is proposed to be erected along the east edge of the landscape buffer, and along the south property line. The applicant requests approval of a project sign at the corner of Cantrell Rd. and Seven Acres Dr. which is to advertise the various businesses occupying the park. Conformance with the Highway 10 Overlay District sign restrictions is proposed for the sign. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Office Development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is being developed; Seven Acres Dr., is under construction. No building development, at this time, had been commenced. The site is nearly level, with only a six foot grade differential within the site. There is a floodway along the south property line which has been dedicated to the City. The existing zoning of the site is POD. All surrounding areas are zoned R-2. Houses back up to the site off Bella Rosa Dr. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that permits for construction of the interior street have already been approved. Public Works has no other comments. K December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5038-B Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that any revisions to the site must be compatible with the existing sewer main extension which has been accepted by the Utility. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that they will need a 15 foot easement around the entire perimeter of the site. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, as long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that they need an easement along the east and the west property lines. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the River Mountain District, and that the adopted Lane Use Plan recommends "Mixed Office -Commercial". The proposal is a modification of an existing mixed use office, commercial, and office-showroom/warehouse planned development, and the proposal does not appreciably change the character of the mixed use development. No Plan issue, then, is involved. The project narrative addresses the use for Lot 2: the Golden Collision Center. Since this particular tenant is named, and no convertibility to other similar or alternative uses is requested, the Golden Collision Center, if approved, will be the only tenant which will be permitted without amending the POD. The building shown on Lot 1 retains, as was shown on the approved site plan, but which is not in conformance with the approved POD, the size of the commercial/"over-the-counter sales" area to be 4,950 square feet. The approved POD limited this area to 4,000 square feet. The amended POD does not modify this approved limitation. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet the Ordinance requirements, with the exception of a portion of the eastern landscape buffer which drops below the 25 foot minimum required buffer per the Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance. 9 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5038-B E. ANALYSIS• There are only minor deficiencies in the submittal information and exhibits, and these can be easily remedied. There are, however, issues which need to be resolved: 1) whether convertibility of the use approved for Lot 2 is desired; 2) the change from a 50 foot undisturbed buffer to a 15 foot landscape strip along the west property line abutting the residences which back up to the site, especially when a 25 foot minimum buffer is required; and 3) whether a collision repair center, in this close proximity to residential uses is acceptable. The applicant needs to address the convertibility issue. The change in the undisturbed buffer from 50 feet to a landscape buffer of 15 feet is a major change in the buffering of the planned development site from the residences which abut the site to the west. An auto painting and body rebuilding shop is listed as a C-4 use. The technology utilized by a "collision repair center", however, is far removed from the out-of-date means used in the past to paint and repair automobiles, and the technology described by the applicant makes the use compatible with an office-showroom/warehouse use allowed in the POD. The proximity of automobiles to the residential neighborhood, however, is a concern, and the noise from the collision repair center, in so close a proximity to the residences, is of concern. The use would be better suited on one of the lots along the east boundary of the POD site, instead of on a lot which abuts residences. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended POD use, as presented, but can support the application if the use is placed on one of the two eastern lots, and the undisturbed buffer is left in tact, as originally approved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Jeff Hathaway, with the Hathaway Group, representing the applicant, and Mr. Joe white, with white-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the character of the proposed amended planned development, and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline and discussed the concerns noted in the outline with Mr. 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5038-B Hathaway and Mr. White. Mr. Bob Brown, the Site Plan Review Specialist, noted the deficiencies in the eastern buffer, pointing out that 25 feet is the required minimum buffer width. Mr. white indicated that any needed changes would be addressed, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the requested planned development, but recommended denial of the proposed amended POD. Staff explained that the body shop, in the location proposed, would abut residences which back up to the property on the west, and that the site plan omits the 50 foot buffer which was approved in the original POD site plan. Staff noted that staff can support the use if the body shop is moved to the east side of Seven Acres Dr. Staff reported that several calls and two letters had been received from abutting residential homeowners who oppose the proposed use and the encroachment into the buffer area. Staff reported that no Land Use Plan amendment is required, should the Commission recommend approval of the amended POD. Mr. Jeff Hathaway, representing the applicant, and Mr. Larry Golden, the applicant, were present. Mr. Hathaway presented the applicant's request, noting that the applicant, Mr. Golden, had sought and received Commission approval for the location of his collision repair facility off I-630 in the Freeway Business Park, but that the Board of Directors had denied the request. He said that Mr. Golden had made an offer on a lot in the Seven Acres Business Park, and was proposing to locate his "state of the art" collision repair facility at this new location. Mr. Golden explained the differences in what people envision as a typical "body shop" and a collision center, such as he proposes. He said that, due to vehicles being so dramatically different from those of just a few years ago. He said that between plastic replacement parts and on -board computers, collision repair is dramatically different from a few years ago, and technology will continue to bring about more changes. A "body shop" cannot fix this type vehicle. He addressed the means of painting vehicles; he reported that the vehicle is driven into the enclosed booth, it is sealed inside the booth, the air is filtered both entering and exiting the booth, and the finish is heat or micro -wave baked onto the body. He presented an architectural rendering of the building, saying that it will, for all practical purposes, look 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5038-B like any other office -warehouse building which would be developed on the site. He said that the proposed building has only overhead doors at each end, not at each repair bay, and that, with this design, neighbors will not hear noises from or see repair work being done. He pointed out that the original POD required the building on Lot 2 to be set at 85 feet off the west property line; the current site proposes a building set at 118 feet off the west property line. He explained that the original POD required a 50 foot undisturbed buffer along the west property line. He said that there are no trees in this area, and that, instead of the 50 foot buffer, which, with no trees would not screen the site, he was proposing to furnish a 15 foot landscaped strip along the west property line, and place an 8 foot high "good neighbor" fence on his side of the landscaping so that the landscaping is on the neighbors' side of the fence. Commissioner Putnam recalled that the Parker Cadillac Body Shop is a very similar facility, and that it was approved for and functions well in close proximity to a residential neighborhood. It is on Rainwood Dr., setting across the street from condominiums, he said, and, he said, that in speaking with residents, he has been told that the Parker facility is a good neighbor; that they would rather have this facility than an office building or some commercial use. He urged the Bella Rosa residents to visit the Parker facility to assuage their concerns. Ms. Ruth Bell, speaking for the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, admitting that Mr. Golden's facility was "state-of-the- art", said that adequate buffers needed to be maintained between residential and non-residential uses. Mr. Ronald Strobel, saying that his home backed up to the proposed body shop site, spoke in opposition to the request. He pointed out that the topography drops significantly from west to east, and that, for a fence to screen the body shop from his home of from Bella Rosa Dr., would have to be substantially higher than 8 feet. Commissioner Adcock asked staff for clarification on the types of uses which are approved for the existing POD. Staff related that the "office -warehouse" classification permits such activities as contractor's office, service and supplier's offices, repair company offices, etc.; those types of activities which require an office as well as a materials or equipment storage facility in conjunction with the office use. Commissioner Adcock asked if, one, whether this is the type of warehousing use, similar to those off Landers Rd. in North Little Rock, with rows and rows of overhead doors, and two, whether the 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5038-B office -warehouse use were all that is currently approved for the POD. Staff replied in the affirmative. Ms. Frieda Vogler, identifying herself as owning the lot at the corner of Bella Rosa and Cantrell Rd., reported that she had not been notified of the Commission hearing, either for the current hearing or for the previous hearing when the POD was approved. She said that she was neither for or against the POD, but questioned the sense of commercial rezoning along Cantrell Rd., intermixed with established residential uses. Commissioner McCarthy urged the Bella Rosa neighbors to visit various office -warehouse facilities, as well as the Parker Cadillac repair facility, to see that the collision.repair facility would be less intrusive than the typical office - warehouse facility. Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson stated that, when the applicant met with staff with the proposal, staff had felt that, since the POD permitted limited retail use on the site, that the collision repair facility could be substituted for the permitted retail use. He said that staff would not support the collision repair facility in addition to the retail use of the site; that, if both were allowed, the character of the POD would be changed. Mr. Bob Brown, Site Review Specialist, reported that the Highway 10 Overlay requirement would require an average minimum buffer around the perimeter of the site of 25 feet, and that, in such a situation as the subject property, the buffer would be a minimum of 25 feet; that the Ordinance would require that, where trees and plantings are not already present, trees and plantings would be required to be installed; that a sprinkler system for watering the plants is required; and that a fence would be required along the west property line. Commissioner Hawn urged the applicant to consider the alternative location of the southeast lot. Mr. Golden responded that he had the subject lot under contract; that he felt that he had a good project; that the landscaping concerns note by Bob Brown could be remedied, and that he needed to pursue the present application through the Commission hearing. Interim Chairperson Ball inquired of the applicant if he would rather seek a deferral of further consideration of the application, in order for him to contact the seller regarding a possible relocation of the site to the southeast lot, or whether 7 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5038-B he would like to seek a vote by the Commission on the current proposal. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the convertibility of the use of the site. Mr. Golden responded that he would want the right to sell the business and to retain the name for himself and his family, but that a similar collision center, with all the approved restrictions, is requested to be able to occupy the premises. Mr. Hathaway asked for clarification on whether, if a deferral were granted in order to negotiate a contract on another lot within the Seven Acres Business Park, the amended request could be heard at the next Commission meting instead of having to wait for a new docket closing date. Staff responded that it would depend on whether all persons within 200 feet of the entire site were notified, or whether persons within 200 feet of the lot were notified. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson stated that if all persons within 200 feet of the entire POD site were notified of the hearing, the item would, at the request of the applicant, be placed on the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing as a deferred item. If, on the other hand, notification did not include all property owners within 200 feet of the entire Seven Acres Business park, then a new application will need to be filed for a different lot within the site to be considered. Commissioner Putnam recommended that, if persons within 200 feet of the entire site had not been previously notified, that the applicant be permitted to simply send out additional notices notifying property owners of the January 30th. meeting. Interim Chairperson Ball confirmed to Mr. Hathaway that the understanding concerning hearing the item as a deferred item was based on the notification procedure being amended to include all persons within 200 feet of the entire site, if this had not already been done. Commissioner Brandon stated that she thought the proposal was a good idea, and that the applicant may not be able to justify moving his proposed development to another lot within the Seven Acres Business Park. Commissioner Rahman suggested that the applicant seek a deferral, and, during the deferral, attempt to meet with neighbors and educate them on the character of his proposed development. He said that he felt the proposal was a good idea, and that it was probably a good use for the lot. 11 December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -5038 -B Deputy City Attorney advised that, if the applicant wanted to pursue his current application to a vote, he could still submit an application on another lot within the Seven Acres Business Center on the next filing date, and could still have a revised request heard at the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing. Commissioner Chachere asked Mr. Golden to confirm that the 25 foot landscaping buffer, with required planning and the sprinkler system, would be provided. Mr. Golden responded that he would meet all requirements, and that he wished to pursue his current application to a vote. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on the approval of Mr. Golden's proposal, and a recommendation of approval failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 9 December 1�, 1995 ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5787-A NAME: APPLETREE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the east side of S. Bowman Rd., approximately 400 feet north of Chenal Parkway DEVELOPER: Best Buy C/o REES DEVELOPMENT 12115 Hinson Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 223-9298 AREA: 3.5 ACRES ZONING• PCD PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: PROPOSED USES: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Commercial/Retail The PCD was established by the Board of Directors by Ordinance No. 16,612, on March 15, 1994. This followed the Planning Commission recommendation of approval on February 8, 1994. At that time, the intended user was "Toys -R -Us", but convertibility to the following uses was approved: book or stationary store, clothing store, drug store or pharmacy, furniture store, hobby shop, lawn and garden center (enclosed), office, office equipment and sales, and retail uses not listed (enclosed). The building setback from the north property line was to be 50 feet, with a planted buffer between the building and the north property line. A privacy fence was to be erected as a land use buffer between the PCD site and the residential use, with the fence in the area of the building being 30 feet off the north property line. The north 25 feet of the approved building footprint was a loading dock/compactor area, and it was to be enclosed within the facade of the building, with the restriction that waiting trucks would not leave their engines or other motors running. The main facade of the building, then, was set at 75 feet off the north property line. The approved PCD restricted the hours of loading and operation of the compactor to daylight hours, and requires that the building colors on the north facade be "neutral tones". The December 1�, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A approved building "footprint" was 146.83 feet wide, plus the 25 foot loading dock/compactor area, by 210.85 feet deep. There were, among other site work requirements, requirements for limiting construction activities on Sundays. When "Toys -R -Us" failed to take the lease space for the Lot 1 area, a privacy fence was required to be erected along the north limits of the proposed building line. (Building walls, where no openings are provided, are allowable as a required land use buffer fence, and, since the wall was not in place, the required buffering was not in place. The temporary privacy fence at the wall location serves as a substitute for the wall.) STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amended PCD in order to modify the approved building "foot print", and to clarify that the allowable users can serve refreshments (coffee, soft drinks, pastries, etc.) to customers as an accessory use to the primary retail use. Instead of the 146.83 foot wide building, plus a 25 foot loading dock/compactor area (for a total width of 171.83 feet), the proposal is for a 167.0 foot wide building, plus a 15 foot loading dock (for a total width of 182.0 feet). The building setback line off the north property line, then, is proposed to be reduced to 40 feet, plus or minus. Instead of the single tenant, two tenant spaces are proposed, the one abutting the Best Buy space being 82 feet wide; the northern -most space being 85 feet wide. The building depth changes from 210.85 feet to 180 feet. As was originally approved, the loading dock is to be enclosed, with a ramp from the parking lot which drops 4 feet at the dock. The temporary privacy fence would be removed, since the building line would provide the required screening device. A enclosed dumpster area is proposed to be provided at the northeast corner of the existing parking lot, immediately north of the loading dock drive. No changes to the existing parking lot or parking lot lighting are proposed. The applicant proposes, however, to replace the existing "shadow-box" fence between the development and the residential neighborhood to the north with a solid wood privacy fence. The applicant also proposes to increase the landscaping plantings in the planted buffer to the north of the fence. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for an Amended Planned Commercial Development. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: Lot 2 of the approved PCD is developed; it is the site of the Best Buy store. The parking lot associated with Lot 1 is developed; however, the building has not been built. The required landscape plantings and fencing are in place. A temporary fence is located at the line where the future building wall will be located in order to provide the required buffer. The site is zoned PCD. To the north is a C-1 zoned tract at the northwest corner of the site, then an R-2 zoned residential area along the remainder of the north boundary of the site. Immediately to the east is R-2 zoned land. Across S. Bowman Rd. to the west is C-3 zoned land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works has no issues to discuss. Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that any revisions to the site must be compatible with the existing sewer main extension which has been accepted by the Utility. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that the plan fails to show an existing 10' AP&L easement which runs along the front of the building line, and they note that they will require a 15 foot easement along the north property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, provided that no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department commented that access is limited on the north side. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The rip -rap drainage structure from the site to the north has never been properly installed, and does not work correctly. This must be corrected. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the northern on- site buffer meets the 28 foot minimum width requirement as required by the Ordinance, but falls below what was previously agreed upon. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A Confirming that use of the loading dock will be limited to daylight hours needs to be addressed, as well as the restriction on trucks waiting to unload. They do not need to wait during the night, with engines or motors running. The hours of servicing of the dumpster needs to be established. Limiting construction activity to daylight hours, as well as prohibiting construction on Sunday should be set. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed use, or clarification that customers can be served refreshments, are not an issue; the encroachment into the 50 foot northern buffer is. The Birchwood neighborhood, abutting the site to the north, pitched a hard-fought battle for this buffer, and, a year later, to propose decreasing it is unacceptable. Increasing the landscaping in the northern buffer and changing out the fence to one which will be in keeping with the neighborhood's reported desire could mitigate this encroachment. As indicated above, a "blank" building wall can serve as a required screening device. The north wall of the building and the north wall of the loading dock will meet the requirement for this screen. The loading dock drive, however, is not protected from view from the north by a fence or other screen; the fence in this area is well below the grade of the drive. A fence or other screening device from the loading dock wall to the parking area needs to be provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the amended PCD as presented, with the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer. If, however, the effects of the 10 foot encroachment are mitigated to the Birchwood neighborhood's satisfaction, staff can support the propsoed change in the PCD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. John Rees, with Rees Development, representing the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the requested amendment and reviewed with Mr. Rees, Mr. McGetrick, and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. The deficiencies in the plan were noted, and Mr. McGetrick responded that these would be addressed. The F 1 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant's representative had submitted a letter, dated December 8, 1995, asking that the item be deferred until the Rezoning agenda of January 2, 1996, to permit the applicant and concerned Birchwood neighbors to meet and to try to resolve their concerns. Staff recommended approval of the deferral; however, staff noted that, since the Commission Bylaws provide that requests for deferral must be made by the applicant at least 5 working days prior to the Commission hearing, and, since the applicant submitted the request on Friday prior to the Tuesday hearing, a waiver of the Commission Bylaws would be needed. Staff recommended approval of the Bylaws waiver. The item was proposed by staff to be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral to the January 2, 1996 Rezoning agenda; however, Commissioner Daniel interjected that, with the stated purpose of the deferral being to permit the applicant and the Birchwood neighbors to meet and to try to resolve compatibility issues, he did not feel that, with the Christmas holidays and the unavailability of some of the Birchwood neighbors, the necessary meetings could be held. He suggested, instead, that the deferral be approved to the January 30, 1996 Commission hearing. Interim Chairperson Ball, noting that there were registration cards of persons who oppose the amended PCD which had been submitted, asked for input from these persons on the question of the requested deferral. Ms. Patty Roberts, a Birchwood neighbor, spoke both in opposition to deferring the hearing of the agenda item to the January 30th. agenda, but also in opposition to a deferral at all. She said that the applicant's representative has had numerous contacts with the Birchwood residents over the years on various hearing requests, and knows who the contact persons are. She related that there had been no contact by the applicant's representative regarding the subject hearing item, yet that there had been adequate time for him to have made the contact. She said that the Birchwood neighbors had been notified that the hearing was to be held "today"; that they had made arrangements to be present, and they wanted to make their presentation in opposition to the requested amended PCD without further deferral. She said that the applicant's representative should have either notified the Birchwood neighbors of his intention to seek a deferral, or should have been present and prepared to discuss the issues. 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A Interim Chairperson Ball asked for a motion to deny approval of a waiver of the Bylaws to allow the item to be included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, without the request being submitted at least five working days prior to the Commission hearing. The motion to deny the Bylaws waiver was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. Interim Chairperson Ball announced that the item would be heard by the Commission on the regular agenda. Staff presented the request, and indicated that the applicant, since he had made a written request seeking a deferral of the hearing of his request, was not present; however, that the applicant's engineer, Mr. Pat McGetrick, was present. Commissioner Chachere, noting that the applicant had specifically sought a deferral in order for him to have an opportunity to meet with the Birchwood neighbors, asked Ms. Roberts if she thought such a meeting would be productive. Ms. Roberts stated that it would not; that she did not feel that anything productive could come from trying to meet with the applicant. She related that the applicant had been involved in a number of development proposals on land which affected Birchwood neighbors, and Birchwood neighbors did not have confidence in the applicant to meet his obligations to the neighborhood. She said that the applicant was familiar with both who to contact in Birchwood and how to contact these persons, and that, to date, he had made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the subject matter. Staff reported that the applicant had indicated to staff in his application that he proposed to work with the neighborhood to deal with some problems the neighborhood had with the originally approved PCD; e.g., to replace the erected "shadow-box" fence with a solid board fence; to increase the landscaping in the northern buffer area; and, to correct a drainage problem at the north property line. Staff related that the applicant had said that he thought the neighborhood would accept the proposed amendment to the PCD if he were to accomplish these changes. Staff's recommendation, then, was based on this representation from the applicant, and the staff recommendation was for denial of the encroachment into the buffer, unless the neighbors were satisfied with the proposed means of mitigating the effects on the neighborhood. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson interjected that, since the applicant had not met with and gotten concurrence with the neighbors on the means of dealing with the effect on the neighborhood, the staff recommendation was for denial of the amended PCD. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A Mr. McGetrick reported that he had contacted Mr. Rees, but that Mr. Rees would not be able to be present. He said that Mr. Rees had met with a couple of the Birchwood neighbors on the preceding Friday, and desired to hold additional meetings and to address neighborhood concerns. He amended the requested deferral to the January 30th. Commission hearing. Commissioner Daniel related that many of the concessions which had been presented to Birchwood residents by the Best Buy developers not been accomplished, and that Best Buy had told him that, because the agreed -to concessions had not been included in the PCD Ordinance, they did not have to do them. He said that if he were going to support anything proposed by Best Buy on the site, the Ordinance would have to be comprehensive, and would have to include every detail of the agreement. Mr. Fred Cason, indicating that he lives in the house which abuts the northeast corner of the Best Buy tract, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. He said that the original PCD was incomplete; that there are issues remaining unresolved from the original PCD development: 1) that the drainage is not right; 2) that the "shadow-box" fence is not the privacy fence which was promised; and 3) that the landscaping on the embankment is not what was promised. He said that the original PCD needs to be completed prior to beginning a new project. He maintained that Mr. Rees is using the promise to deal with deficiencies from the original PCD as a "bargaining chip" to gain support from the neighborhood for the new proposal. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reported that Mr. Cason had made him aware of the inadequacy of the drainage system behind Mr. Cason's property, and that the contractor on the project has been directed to make the modifications necessary for the system to perform correctly. He reported that the contractor's maintenance bond was a guarantee for the performance of all systems installed. Ms. Roberts spoke in opposition to the proposed amended PCD. She said that, in order to build the Best Buy site, serious earth moving was done by the contractor, and a "mountain" was built which stands approximately 20 feet above the original grade and drops off in an embankment behind her home and Mr. Cason's home. The Best Buy building, she continued, occupied the south portion of the lot; a second building, originally to be the Toys -R -Us building, was to be constructed up to the north edge of the embankment. She maintained that the buffer between the neighborhood and the development was to have been a 50 foot "undisturbed" buffer, but that it had been "disturbed" in order to build the "mountain". She maintained that a solid wood fence was supposed to have been built at top edge of the embankment, but that a "shadow-box" fence was installed, instead, and it was 7 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5787-A installed mid -way up the slope of the embankment. She explained that she had called Jim Lawson, Neighborhoods and Planning Director, regarding the matter, and that Mr. Lawson had "twisted arms" to get a second fence installed which is a solid fence at the top of the embankment. This second fence, she said, met the requirements of blocking being able to see the Best Buy building, blocking sound, and keeping trash from blowing off the parking lot into the neighborhood. She went on to say, though, that, in order to build a building which extends 10 feet further north than was originally planned, the 50 foot buffer will have to be "disturbed" and the north wall of the building will have to be on "stilts", since the embankment drops off at the original building line. She said that the neighborhood had fought for the 50 foot buffer, and, even though it is not great, it is unacceptable to propose to make it less. She stated that Best Buy uses a good portion of the parking on the site, and that to add two more retail stores to the site would overload the parking lot. She complained that when PCD's are established and the requirements set, these requirements should be able to be relied on. Instead, she said, they are always changing, and neighbors have to keep coming back and fighting for the requirements they fought for originally. She urged the Commission to deny the amended PCD request. She said that she had made arrangements for child care and to be present, and that the applicant not being present should not keep the Commission from voting to deny the application. Commissioner Lichty asked Ms. Roberts is anything could be done by the applicant to mitigate the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer, to which Ms. Roberts responded, "absolutely nothing". Mr. Ken Davis, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. Mr. Floyd Boyd, representing the Birchwood Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the requested amendment. He said that the applicant had consistently come before the Commission asking for more than could be accommodated on the various sites, or asking to change and add to previously approved plans. A motion was made to deny the application; however, Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles advised the Commissioners that the motion should be in the affirmative, a motion to approve the requested amended PCD. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question, and the approval of the amended PCD failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 absent. 9 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -5845-A NAME: RESERVOIR FLAT ADDITION -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: On the east side of Reservoir Road, approximately 0.75 mile north of Rodney Parham Road and 1 mile south of Cantrell Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jack Larrison John R. Pownall LARRISON & COMPANY THOMAS ENGINEERING 11518 Fairview Rd., Suite A 3810 Lookout Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 North Little Rock, AR 72216 225-5160 753-4463 AREA: 2.2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-5 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a private drive in an access easement to provide access to Lots 2 through 4. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Residential in order to develop a 2.2 acre tract for use as a ,townhome" community. The developer proposes to construct 15 attached homes; there is to be one duplex building, three tri-plex buildings, and one four-plex building. The townhomes are to be two story, two bedroom, 1 1/2 baths, living -dining, and kitchen units. The dwellings will have fireplaces and washers and dryers. The duplex building is proposed to be 32.5 feet by 32 feet; the tri- plex buildings are to be 48.75 feet by 32 feet; and the four-plex is to be 65 feet by 32 feet. These are "proposed" sizes; however, the developer notes that individual buyers may want to construct "slightly larger" units, and this option is retained. December 1:&, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A Each of the five buildings is proposed to stand on an individual lot within the subdivision. The developer proposes to be able to sell townhome buildings on the various lots, but not to sell individual townhomes within buildings. A central common access easement and private drive provides access to the individual lots and to parking areas at each of the buildings, and a request for approval of a private drive in a common access easement is requested. Additionally, a request is made for a variance from the requirement that the interior driveway in the private access easement meet City public street standards. The access easement includes the parking areas, and provision for cross -access easements is to be made. With the 15 townhomes, parking for 34 vehicles is proposed. Drives and parking areas are to be asphalt; curbs and gutters and sidewalks are to be concrete. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Development -Residential, with a common access easement and private drive providing internal circulation to the individual lots. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a variance from the requirement for a drive in an access easement to meet City street standards for construction and width, with the spacing of entries to parking areas restricted, with a cul-de-sac or other turn -around device required, and, with sidewalks along both sides of the streets required. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and partially wooded. The southern boundary of the site abuts Grassy Flat Creek, and this area has been previously dedicated to the City for "Open Space". The topography rises from an elevation at the southwest corner of the tract abutting Grassy Flat Creek and Reservoir Rd. of approximately 370 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level), to over 382 feet at the northeast corner of the portion of the site to be developed. At the northeast corner of the rear "tract", the elevation rises to over 412 feet. The site is zoned R-5, and is part of a larger R-5 district to the north. To the east is a large R-2 area. Abutting the site to the south is an OS zoned tract along the Grassy Flat Creek floodway, and beyond the creek, to the south, is more R-2 area. Across Reservoir Rd. to the west is a large residential development in an R-2 zoned area. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: A SFHA development permit must be obtained prior to construction. A grading permit may also be required. Provide one-half street improvements to Reservoir Rd. Reservoir Rd. is a minor arterial roadway, and right- of-way dedication is required. Due to the multi -lot nature of this commercial development, the access should be constructed to commercial street standards, and parking driveways should be limited to ordinance standards. Combine the first drives to the south and the stub at the end for access to Tract "A". Access to Tract "A" should have the drive aprons a minimum of 25 feet from the property line. This drive can be 27 feet in width and have a cul-de-sac at the end, subject to the length not being over 300 feet. A flare to 35 feet at Reservoir Rd. is recommended. A sidewalk is required on both sides of the drive. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $150 per acre applies. Water Works needs to evaluate the planned cuts and fills. Significant cuts and fills in the easement area may be prohibited. Additional easements may be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. commented that a 10 foot wide easement will be required along the entire length of the north and south boundaries of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. notes that they want a 51 easement along the north property line. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the West Little Rock District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multifamily" for the area. The requested development, then, is in conformance with the Plan. Sec. 36-456 requires that the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property (fences, screening, etc.) be specified. Sec. 36-456 requires that all dimensions of structures from property lines and from each other be shown. Sec. 36-502 requires at least 1 1/2 parking spaces for each multi -family dwelling unit. Sec. 31-231 states that every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where a private street is explicitly approved by the Planning Commission. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building sites, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public streets. The location of the private service easements shall be indicated on the plat and shall be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors. Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the applicant is to: 1) provide the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed book and page number or instrument number; 2) indicate the average and minimum lot sizes; 3) any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, 4) request any variances, waivers, or deferrals. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the plat is to show: 1) minimum building front yard setback lines; 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easements and typical ditch section; 3) the names of owners of all land which abut the proposed subdivision; 4) accurate locations and adequate physical descriptions of all monuments, showing the size and type of material of all monuments; 5) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas; 6) any floodplain area within the plat; and 7) any proposed phasing of the development. 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certifications be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be provided with the application. Sec. 31-201 provides that, when a subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the minimum of one-half the required Master Street Plan improvements is required to be provided by the developer. Sec. 31-256 requires that the front building setback line be platted on the various lots. The plat notes that the rear Tract "A" is for a future phase, yet the project narrative does not address issue. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that the areas set aside for buffers meet the zoning ordinance requirement. if this site is platted as having separate lots, then the Landscape Ordinance will require a 6 foot wide landscape strip along each lot line at the vehicular use areas, exclusive of ingress and egress easements. E. ANALYSIS• The R-5 zoning district permits a density of up to 36 dwelling units per acre. On the 2.2 acre site, 15 units are proposed, or a density of less than 7 units per acre. The proposed, even with future additional units, is well within the density allowed by the existing zoning and by the Land Use Plan designation for "Multi -Family" use of the area. Twenty-three parking spaces are required by the Regulations; 34 spaces are provided. The parking requirements are met. The applicant proposes a common access easement, with a private drive, and an access easement, with provision for common cross -access for the dries and parking areas, and requests a variance to permit the drive and parking areas to be construed to private drive standards, instead of to City public street standards. If the private drive is required to be construed to public street standards, the street will have to be a minimum of 27 feet, with a 36 foot flare at Reservoir Rd., in lieu of the 25 feet proposed, there will have to be a cul-de-sac, or other approved turn -around device within the access easement at the east end of the drive, sidewalks will be required along both sides of the drive, and the minimum spacing of drive entrances to the parking lots of 300 feet between curb cuts will be in force. The applicant is seeking a variance from these provisions, 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A citing the common and cross -access easements and the light number of vehicles on the site. Half street improvements to Reservoir Rd. are required, and no waiver or deferral of this requirement is requested. The deficiencies in the submitted plan and information are not substantial, and can be provided subsequent to the Planning Commission approval of the planned development, but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors. The status of "Tract A1° needs to be clarified. If it is to be used for future development, the footprints of future buildings, drives, and parking need to be included at this time. Otherwise, an amended planned development will need to be considered when the future development is undertaken. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, and of the common access easement and private drive for access to the individual lots and parking lots, Staff recommends denial of the private drive/parking area layout. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Jack Larrison, the applicant, and Mr. John Pownall, with Thomas Engineering, the project engineer, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and reviewed with Mr. Larrison, Mr. Pownall, and the Committee members the concerns noted in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, explained the Engineering concerns regarding the design of the private drive and parking areas. He also discussed the nature of any proposed future development on the east tract. Mr. Larrison explained that, at most. two additional buildings might be built on this tract, and that the existing parking lots abutting the lot line would be expanded onto the new area. He indicated that the future development would be indicated on the drawing. David Scherer explained the requirement for improvements to Reservoir Rd. With the assurance from Misters Larrison and Pownall that the deficiencies and concerns would be addressed, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 1.1 December 1�, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the concerns discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the staff "write-up", and that staff recommended approval of the planned development. Staff explained that the Ordinance provides that, when a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of a Public Street. Staff noted that the applicant had requested this type service easement, and that the design meets with Public Works requirements. Staff recommended approval of the service easement. Staff explained that the Ordinance requires that improvements within access easements meet public street standards, but that the applicant had requested a variance from this requirement to permit the improvements to be to private drive and parking lot standards, and without sidewalks along both sides of the drive, as would be required on a commercial street. Staff noted that this variance would require Board of Directors approval, and recommended that the Commission recommend approval of this requested variance to the Board of Directors. Staff explained that the Ordinance requires one-half boundary street improvements for Reservoir Rd., a boundary street to this project, but that the applicant had requested a deferral of this requirement until the City has a public program to continue the on-going improvements along Reservoir Rd., at which time the applicant would make his portion of the required improvements. Staff recommended denial of this requested deferral. Staff explained that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Multi - Family"; therefore, no Land Use Plan amendment would be necessary for approval of the PD -R. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, commented that there is no proposed public project which will extend Reservoir Rd. improvements north of the Grassy Flat Creek bridge, and said that the developer needs to make the required half street improvements to Reservoir Rd. as required by the Master Street Plan. He reported that Public Works recommends denial of a deferral of the requested street improvements. He said that Public Works supports the requested variance for the internal drive and parking lot design. Mr. John Pownall, the project engineer, explained that it had been his and the applicant's understanding that the Grassy Flat 7 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -5845-A Creek bridge would require widening and, possibly, a grade change, and that the applicant was requesting to defer the contiguous improvements to the bridge until the City has plans and a project to make necessary changes to the bridge. He said that the applicant was proposing to make the street improvements the roadway in front of the buildings, but was seeking a deferral of the improvements south of the south building. David Scherer responded that the grade of the bridge would not be changed, and explained that the road improvements are needed to permit traffic to get out of the travel lane to turn into the project. Mr. Jack Larrison, the applicant, explained that there are various lots with a tri-plex or four-plex on the lots, and that the lots, with the tri-plex or four-plex will be sold. The individual owners of the buildings will have the option of leasing the dwelling units within the building they own. A motion was made and seconded to approve the requested planned development, with the private access and service easement, and with a recommendation of approval of the variance from the public street standards for the private internal drives and parking lots. The motion was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question on the requested deferral of half street improvements to Reservoir Rd. The requested deferral failed with the vote of 0 ayes, 9 nays, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 absent. December 1i., 1995 ITEM NO.: 11 FILE NO.: Z-6062 NAME: GLOBAL LEARNING COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER, INC. -- SHORT-FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At 1814-16, 1818-20, and 1822-24 McAlmont Street DEVELOPER: Shirley Ann Marshall GLOBAL LEARNING COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER, INC. 1608 S. Rock St. Little Rock, AR 72206 375-2430 AREA: 0.389 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-4 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 4 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Establishment of a charitable or philanthropic organization The applicant proposes a Planned Office Development in order to use three existing, 1,200 square foot, residential duplex structures as the support offices for, and facilities for services to the public for, the Global Learning Community Services Center. It is proposed that the northern -most duplex building be used for the office of the Center's crisis intervention hotline, for counseling, and for the food pantry operation. The center duplex structure is proposed to be the general offices of the Center. The southern -most duplex structure is proposed to house the youth center and the GED classroom. No changes to the structures are proposed, except for superficial remodeling and repair work, and no additional parking beyond the 6 residential style head -in parking spaces off McAlmont St. are proposed. The site is proposed to be landscaped, and it is proposed to retain the residential character of the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Office Development for the site. December 1:&, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6062 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is developed; there are three duplex residential units on the site. The site is in a developed area, and the topography is nearly level. The existing zoning of the site is R-4, with R-4 zoned property lying to the north, south, and west. I-30 abuts the site to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that a site plan, showing driveways and parking area, must be submitted for review. Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that there are existing sewer mains on the site which serve the existing buildings. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is in the Central City District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single Family" uses for the area. The character of the proposed organization is, however, a quasi -public use, involving support office uses for and services to the public. The "Public -Institutional" ("PI") use designation is appropriate for this type use, and the Planning staff recommends a change in the Land Use Plan to "PI" for this site. Sec. 36-502 specifies the required off-street parking. if the use is considered "office", then 3 spaces per building, or a total of 9 off-street parking spaces is required. The applicant, however, has requested approval of the site "as is", approving the 6 head -in parking spaces which exist on the site. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6062 The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the northern and eastern property lines. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed use is in conformance with the emerging character of the area. There is a large C-3 zoning district about a block to the south; Rockefeller School is a block to the north; and I-30 abuts the site to the east. Much of the land area to the south, along I-30 is vacant. The applicant explains that their service is, primarily, to homeless and needy persons in the neighborhood, and that there is very little vehicle traffic to the facility. There is, explains the applicant, little need for additional parking spaces, and, due to the light traffic which the Center generates and which uses McAlmont St., the head -in, residential style, parking is sufficient. Additionally, the applicant explains that the residential character of the site needs to be retained for the benefit of the clientele who will be served at the Center. The applicant requests approval of the planned development site plan, without a requirement to provide commercial style off-street parking. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, as presented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) No one was present. Staff explained that, since the proposed development is, primarily, a "use" issue, with no physical changes to the buildings or site being proposed, staff had not required the applicant to be present. David Scherer and Bill Henry, with the Public Works staff, indicated that, if traffic becomes a problem, "No Parking" signs will be erected along McAlmont St. The Committree forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the proposed POD requested, noting that staff supports the proposed land use but has concerns that the only off-street parking are the six residential style head -in parking places which are associated with the three duplex residences. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6062 Staff reported that there is an unopened right-of-way abutting the property on the south, and that the applicant could initiate a petition to abandon the right-of-way and would, if the abandonment were successful, gain one-half the right-of-way land area, which could be useful in providing additional off-street parking spaces to meet off-site parking requirements. Staff reported that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single Family Residential"; however, that staff can support a change in the Land Use Plan for the site to "Public/Institutional". Staff recommended approval of a Land Use Plan amendment for the Central City District for the site to Public/Institutional use. Ms. Shirley Marshall, the applicant was present. She explained the various uses proposed for the three duplex buildings, and noted that, almost exclusively, persons who utilize the services provided by her agency do not come to the agency by automobile; they are children from the immediate neighborhood, or are adults who do not have automobiles who are homeless, are unemployed, or are in need of substance abuse counseling. She said that the six parking spaces should be adequate. Staff reported that, if parking on McAlmont becomes a problem, then the City Traffic Engineer will have to have "No Parking" signs erected along the street. No one was present in objection to the proposed use, and staff reported that no one had called staff or sent in letter in opposition to the proposed use. Commissioner Rahman reported that, as the representative of the School Board, he had notified the School Board of the proposed POD use, noting its proximity to the Rockefeller School campus, but that he had received no response from the School Board expressing any concern. The question was called, and a recommendation of approval of the POD was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 4 } December 1-, 1995 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-6080 NAME: CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL MUSEUM -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of W. 14th. Street and S. die Street iMv,, DEVELOPER• ARCHITECT• CENTRAL HIGH MUSEUM, INC. Jim Vandenberg Everett Tucker, III, President DONAGHEY PROJECT TCBY Tower FOR URBAN STUDIES AND DESIGN 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 300 400 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 324-9255 AREA: 2.05 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-3; R-4; & I-2 PROPOSED USES: Public Institutional PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT• 10 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to develop a Central High School Museum complex, to occupy three corners of the W. 14th. St. and S. Park St. intersection, with Central High School occupying the fourth corner. The site includes a 0.4 acre lot at the southeast corner of the intersection; a 0.2 acre lot at the northwest corner; and a 1.5 acre lot at the northeast corner. The First Phase of development involves the lot at the southeast corner of the intersection, which is the site of an abandoned gasoline service station. The facade of the gas station is to be restored to its 1957 -era character. The interior is to be renovated to create a visitor information center, audio-visual presentation theater, exhibit space, and a gift shop. An additional structure is to be added on the south side of the gas station to house restrooms and administrative facilities.. It will be built in the same style as the gas station. The renovated and expanded facility should "integrate well into the existing fabric of the neighborhood". The grounds of the gas station are to be redesigned to provide a fenced -in reception December 1:,., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6080 garden, at the southwest side of the building, and a 17 car parking lot, on the east side of the gas station building. Landscaping and vegetative screening as land use buffering against the residential uses will be installed. Signage will be limited to building mounted signs, plus any needed traffic circulation signage. The Second Phase of development involves the lot at the northwest corner of the intersection. An Alumni Commemorative Garden is to occupy this space. It will provide a "promontory of sites important to the events of 1957". It will be a well -landscaped meditation space available for public use and an outdoor interpretative area. A covered pavilion is envisioned to be featured. The Third Phase of development involves the lot at the northeast corner of the intersection, and is the phase in which the Central High Museum, itself, will be constructed. It will house the exhibits and interpretive elements to tell the story of the events of 1957. Proposed is an approximately 10,000 square foot multi-purpose building, housing an orientation lobby and gift shop, exhibit space, restrooms, administrative office and support spaces, a community theater, with a community lobby. The community theater, with its separate lobby entry, provides a "community use" component which can be used by the neighborhood for meetings and events. The materials to be used in construction of the museum are to relate to the Central High School building, with use of materials (brick and pre -cast lintels and inserts) which are characteristic of the school building. The scale of the building will be designed to relate to the residential neighborhood, being the scale of a neighborhood commercial use, such as a neighborhood grocery store. Since the early use of the site was a commercial nursery, with a series of glass greenhouses, the S. Park St. facade will relate in scale and materials to the greenhouses; there are to be large expanses of glass on this facade, and the building is to be translucent. At the W. 14th. St. -S. Park St. intersection, an entry plaza is envisioned. The site also includes a front yard/reception garden along the S. Park St. frontage of the building and a garden on the east side of the building. The east garden is requested to be permitted to be an expansion are, which will add another 2,500 square feet to the building. Parking for 72 vehicles is to be provided, as well a 6 tour buses. The drives include a covered drop-off area at the Community Lobby. Landscape buffers are to be created at all perimeters of the property abutting the residential areas. Site lighting is to be by low level ground -mounted fixtures no taller than 16 feet, with cut-off fixtures to restrict overspill of light onto the residential neighbors, and no light fixture is to be able to be seen directly from off property. Minimal signage is proposed, with the identification signage being affixed to the buildings. 4 December 1z, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6080 No back -lighting is to be used. A monument sign, no taller than 4 feet above the ground, may be used, and it would be located in the vicinity of the northeast corner of W. 14th. St. and S. Park St. Necessary traffic circulation signage will be provided, as well. Delivery and trash collection will be scheduled at such a time that they will not interfere with adjacent uses. There are to be no exterior dumpsters or dumpster enclosures on the site. Along with the project involving the three corner properties, the intersection itself is proposed to receive special paving materials, colors, and a design in the pavement surfaces to tie the three corners of the museum complex to the High School A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Office Development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The southeast corner of the intersection of W. 14th. and S. Park St. is the location of an abandoned gasoline service station. The site is, however, zoned R-5. The northwest corner is a vacant lot. It is zoned R-4. The northeast corner is occupied by two residential structures and a number of glass and metal green houses. This was the site of the Capitol Wholesale Florist business until its relocation. This site is zoned I-2. Abutting all three tracts is R-3 and R-4 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: A grading permit must be obtained. Stormwater detention and hydraulic analysis of the existing systems must be provided. A 20 foot corner radial area at each of the intersections must be dedicated. Corner ramps for sidewalks are not in compliance with the City of Little Rock Standards. Construct directional ramps for each crosswalk. Repair any existing walks or construct new sidewalks. Six foot walks shall be constructed. The corner radius for each 3 December 1:6, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6080 street curb at intercessions shall be 25 foot, minimum, especially due to the planned bus traffic. Contribute $30,000 toward the cost of a traffic signal at W. 14th. St. and S. Park St., which will be installed once volumes warrant the installation. A franchise agreement must be established for the special intersection design and for the maintenance of the special pavement materials, colors, and designs. Driveway aprons shall be concrete and have expansion joints at right-of-way line. Repair or replace any damaged pavement in the adjoining streets, including curb and gutter. Little Rock Water Works has no comments. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that there are existing sewer mains on the site which serve the existing buildings. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, subject to the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the construction, as long as no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the Central City District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single Family" uses for the area. The existing zoning for most of the area is "Commercial" and the predominant use is and has been non-residential in the area for years. The Land Use Plan shows "Public" use to the southeast, and, since the proposed use is a "Public" use, an expansion of the related "Public/Institutional" land use area is logical. Staff recommends that the Plan be changed to expand the "Public/Institutional" use area to include the proposed development site. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that all areas adjacent to residential uses should be screened with a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its face directed outward, or with dense evergreen plantings. Another option is to use walls of brick, rock, etc. M December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6080 E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff can support the proposed use as an expansion of the existing "Public/Institutional" use on the Central High School property. There is, then, not a land use issue. With minor adjustments to accommodate the Public Works comments, the site plan can be approved. There are no major concerns to be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the POD, subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of the Public Works Department. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Rett Tucker, representing the applicant, and Mr. Jim Vandenberg, with the Donaghey Project, the project architect, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and reviewed with Mr. Tucker, Mr. Vandenberg, and the Committee members the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members reviewed the plans and comments, and discussed the proposed development with the applicant. Following the discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that there were no issues to be resolved; that the applicant had agreed to meet the Public Works requirements discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, including the requirement to contribute $30,000 towards a traffic signal at the intersection of W. 14th. St. and S. Park St., with the construction of the museum building and if traffic warrants justify such a signal. Staff reported that a Land Use Plan amendment would be required with approval of the proposed POD. Staff recommended a designation of "Public/Institutional" for the site which is in the Central City District. 61, December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-6080 The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the recommendation of approval of the POD and of the change in the Land Use Plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 0 j December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO • Z -3597 - NAME: MEDICAL PLAZA WEST -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Road and Rodney Parham Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Ron Tabor Joe White FLAKE, TABOR, TUCKER, WELLS, WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. & KELLY 401 S. Victory St. P. O. Box 990 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 374-1666 376-8005 AREA: 7.26 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: N/A STAFF UPDATE: PROPOSED USES: Professional Offices This item was withdrawn from the agenda, by letter from the applicant dated November 29, 1995. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested withdrawal of the application without prejudice. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant submitted had a letter, dated November 29, 1995, asking that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. Staff explained that the item was converted to a preliminary plat review, instead of the originally requested site plan review, and staff recommended approval of the requested withdrawal. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the withdrawal was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: Z -4343-I NAME: SADDLE CREEK CENTER -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Ranch Blvd., and Ranch Drive, approximately 300 feet north of Cantrell Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ed Willis Joe White FINANCIAL CENTRE CORPORATION WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P. 0. Box 56350 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 224-9600 374-1666 AREA: 4.46 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-2 PROPOSED USES: General Retail and Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 20 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. Approval of a variance from the requirement that the internal private drives meet public street standards, to permit the drives to be constructed to driveway standards. 2. Approval of a variance from the restriction on the spacing of drive access points to lots from public or private streets, to permit two driveways plus a service drive to be located within a 340 foot distance along he private street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests review of a site plan for a commercial and office complex on a 4.46 acre tract. The site is proposed to consist of three buildings on three separate lots; however, access to the lots and the parking areas are proposed to be shared, with a common access easement encompassing the drives and parking areas, with provision for cross-over access easements. Lot B-1 is to be a 1.057 acre lot, with a 10,170 square foot building on it. A drive-thru pick-up window is requested at the east facade of the building, and parking for 35 vehicles is to be provided. Lot B-2 is to be a 1.355 acre lot, with a 11,709 square foot building located on it. A drive-thru pick-up window December 1e, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4343-I is requested at the south facade of the building, and parking for 40 vehicles is to be provided. Lot B-3 is to be a 2.021 acre lot, with a 17,581 square foot building located on it. Parking for 58 vehicles is provided. A private drive for access to the project site is proposed to be constructed along the south boundary of the tract. Approval of a preliminary plat for the tract is being sought as Item 5-b on the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission agenda, and the access easement and private drive issues are being addressed as part of the preliminary plat item. The matter of the common access easement and private interior traffic circulation system, with the cross-over easements for drives and the parking areas needs to be addressed with the site plan review, and approval of this is requested. Approval is also requested for two variances: one from the regulations which requires the internal access drives to meet public street standards, with sidewalks on both sides, and one from the regulation which restricts the number of access points along the lot frontage of Lots B-2 and B-3, to permit two public and one service access point from the private drive which borders the site on the south. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site plan for a commercial center, with access easements to provide internal circulation, and a private drive system and shared parking areas, with cross-over access easements. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for approval of a variance from the regulation which requires internal private drives to meet public street design standards, with sidewalks on both sides, to permit the internal drives to be constructed to driveway standards. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of approval to the Board of Directors is requested for approval of a variance from the restriction on the spacing of drive access points to lots from public or private streets, to permit two driveways plus a service drive to be located within a 340 foot distance along the private street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped, but, since it was once pasture land, it is, for the most part, cleared of vegetation. There are a number of large trees located on the site. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4343-I The existing zoning of the site is C-2, with the remainder of the C-2 tract lying to the east and south. To the north, across Ranch Dr., is an 0-2 zoned tract at the intersection of Ranch Rd. and Ranch Blvd., and a MF -18 tract surrounding the corner tract. Across Ranch Blvd. to the west is a large O-2 tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. The south lots should have a maximum of 2 driveways onto the south access street. Sidewalks are required along all boundary streets. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer is available, with no adverse effect to the system from the proposed development. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along all four sides of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal The Little Rock Fire Department commented that an additional fire hydrant will be required at the west side of the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 36-127 requires that, among other zoning districts, sites in C-2 zoned areas are subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4343-I On-site fire hydrants, both existing and proposed are to be shown. Sec. 31-287 requires that, where a commercial development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots and building site, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of public commercial streets. The location of the private service easements shall be indicated on the plat and shall be built to public street design standards. Design of service easement improvements shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Any variance from the public street standards must be appealed to the City Board of Directors The shown private access drive does not meet the public street standards, and a variance from this requirement is sought. Sec. 31-210 limits, among others, commercial and office lots to one driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage, and provides that shared or common driveway points are encouraged to reduce impact of these requirements on lots of less than 300 feet in frontage. Within the two lots, each with frontages of less than 300 feet, three drive access points (two for the public and one service drive) are shown. A variance is requested to permit these three drive access points. Parking for general business and retail sales uses is 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area for the first 10,000 square feet of building size, then, for areas between 10,001 and 20,000 square feet, 95% of the basic requirement is mandated. Required parking is 128 spaces; a total of 170 is provided. The Plans Review Specialist notes that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet the Ordinance requirements. Curbs and gutters, or another approved border, are required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. E. ANALYSIS• There are only minor deficiencies in the presented documents, and any deficiencies can be dealt with prior to final approval of the site plan by staff. The nature of the "center", with an internalized traffic circulation system, but with separate lots, acts as a unified center. Common access and cross -access easements are provided, and, except for lines on the site plan, the lot lines are irrelevant to the functioning of the center. 4 } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO • Z -4343-I Drives, as if the development were on a single lot, then, are appropriate, as long as they function well. The additional access point form the south boundary private street for service vehicles is justified, and the variance from the regulations can be supported. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, with the common access easements and cross easements encompassing the interior drives and parking areas. Staff recommends approval of the variance from the regulation which will require the internal drives to meet public street design standards, with sidewalks on both sides. Staff recommends approval of the variance form the regulation which limits the access points form the south boundary private street to two access points, to permit an additional service access point. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Bob Schultz and Mr. Ed Willis, the applicants, and Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. Staff pointed out that the site is part of a larger tract, and that, in subdividing the subject tract from the larger tract, a preliminary plat is needed. Mr. White indicated that a plat would be forthcoming. David Scherer and Bill Henry, with the Public Works staff, reviewed the Public Works concerns. The Committee members discussed the various issues, and forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the Public Works concerns noted at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff noted that the Ordinance provides that, when a development requires the creation of an internalized circulation system to provide access to multiple lots, the Planning Commission may authorize the use of a service easement in lieu of a Public Street, and that the applicant had requested such a service 5 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4343-I easement. Staff reported that the entire internal drive area is to be within the access easement, and its design meets with Public works requirements. Staff recommended approval of the service easement. Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that improvements within service easements meet public street standards, and that the applicant had requested a variance from this requirement to permit the improvements to be to private drive and parking lot standards, and without sidewalks along both sides of the drive, as would be required for a commercial street. Staff recommended approval of this requested variance. Staff reported that the Ordinance requires that, where lots have less than 300 feet of frontage on a street, they are to have a common access point, but that in the case of the subject property, where one lot has 240 feet of frontage and the other, 230 feet, that within this 470 feet, the site plan proposes 2 drive access points for the public, plus one service drive. Staff explained that a variance from the Ordinance limitation is needed, and staff recommended approval of the variance. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The site plan and internalized service easement were approved, and a recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval of a variance: 1) to permit the improvements within the service easement to be constructed to private drive and parking lot standards, without sidewalks along both sides of the drive; and 2) to permit 2 public drive access points and one service drive within the 470 feet of frontage of Lots B-2 and B-3 were recommended for approval, with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z -4662-A NAME: BOEN ADDITION, LOT 1 -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of Col. Glenn Road, approximately 0.1 mile west of Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick LEONARD BOEN MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11600 Otter Creek South 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72103 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-0004 223-9900 AREA: 4.81 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-1 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Warehouse; Office Warehouse; Manager's Office and Residence PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Review of a site plan is proposed for development of a 4.81 acre tract to include 18,900 square feet of office warehouse area and 56,725 square feet of mini -storage facilities, including a manager's office and residence. The office warehouse use area is the 285 foot long by 60 foot deep building across the front of the lot, plus a 30 foot wide by 60 foot deep portion of the west front building. The remainder of the west building, plus the south and east boundary building, and five interior buildings, are mini -storage uses. A manager's office and residence are to be provided. Parking for 61 vehicles is provide. Dedication of the required right-of-way and construction of half -street improvements to Col. Glenn Rd. are proposed to be provided. No variances are requested. - A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site plan. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The site rises in topography from an elevation of 336 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the southeast corner of the tract, to 360 feet, MSL, at the northwest corner, a 24 foot differential within 650 feet, or a 4% average grade across the site. Grades range, however, up to 9%, with a 6% grade being the median grade on the site. The site is zoned I-1. There is a C-2 site immediately to the west, and is the location of the Sam's Club building. Lot 2 of the development, zoned I-1, lies to the east. The property to the south and north is zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Col. Glenn Rd. is a Principal Arterial. Dedication of right -o -way to 55 feet from centerline must be dedicated, and construction of one-half street improvements, in including a sidewalk, on Col. Glenn Rd. is required. The four-way crossing drive may not be closer to the new curb line on Col. Glenn Rd. than 50 feet. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provide comments. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, provided that no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. K December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-A Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 36-127 requires that, among other zoning districts, sites in I-1 zoned areas are subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. Sec. 36-319 requires that the front building setback line on I-1 zoned lots be set at least 70 feet off the right-of-way; that the side yards are to be at least 30 feet in width; and that the rear yard setback be at least 40 feet from the lot line. The site plan shows the front building to be 40 feet. The buildings are well behind this line, but the shown line needs to be corrected. The west side setback is shown to be 29.8 feet; 30 feet is required. The applicant can request, and the Commission can approve, a variance from this requirement in the site plan review approval. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes: The full ordinance requirement for the front landscape buffer is 25 1/2 feet (or, 17 feet minimum with transfer to another area of the site). The site plan appears to meet this requirement. A 6' high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the east property line not screened by the proposed structure. E. ANALYSIS: There are only minimal deficiencies in the submittal, and these can be addressed subsequent to the Commission approval of the site plan. Staff can support the minor west side yard variance (0.2 feet!), if the applicant wishes to add this request to the item. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. 3 1 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and the Committee members the concerns in the discussion outline. It was noted that the site plan, as presented, had shown Col. Glenn Rd. to be a Minor Arterial, and that there was inadequate right-of-way and improvements shown to meet the requirement of the Principal Arterial, which it is. Mr. McGetrick responded that the appropriate right-of-way and improvements would be shown on the drawing. He also indicated that all Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planing issues would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for approval of the site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addresses the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting and in the agenda "write-up". Staff reported that the deficiencies in the front landscaping requirement would be required to be addressed, and that approval of the preliminary plat, being addressed as Item 4 in the agenda being considered, would be required. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the site plan was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent, subject to the preliminary plat being approved. 4 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z -4662-B NAME: BOEN ADDITION, LOT 2 -- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of Col. Glenn Road, approximately 0.2 mile west of Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick LEONARD BOEN MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11600 Otter Creek South 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72103 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-0004 223-9900 AREA: 4.51 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: I-1 PROPOSED USES: Office Warehouse PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: A site plan review is proposed for development of a 4.51 acre lot for use as an office warehouse facility. The development consists of a single, 63,000 square foot office warehouse building and parking for 83 vehicles, plus a service area. The building is proposed to be located 30 feet off the front property line, 130 feet off the east line, 85 feet off the west lot line, and 49 feet off the rear property line. Dedication of right-of- way for and construction of one-half of Principal Arterial road requirements for Col. Glenn Rd. are proposed. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. The site rises in topography from an elevation of 320 feet, MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the southeast corner of the tract, to 340 feet, MSL, at the northwest corner, a 20 foot differential within 650 feet, or a 3% average grade across the site. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-B The site is zoned I-1. The Lot 1 area of the subdivision of which the subject site is a part is immediately to the west, in the same I-1 zone. The property to the east, south, and north is zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. Col. Glenn Rd. is a Principal Arterial, and dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet form centerline is required. Construct one-half street improvements, in including a sidewalk, on Col. Glenn Rd. to Principal Arterial standards. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval of the plat [Ref. Sec. 311-89(9)]. Show water courses entering the plat area, and the planned exit points for drainage. Little Rock Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provide comments. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal, with the stipulation that ARKLA has no objection to the layout, provided that no ARKLA facilities are disturbed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Little Rock Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 36-127 requires that, among other zoning districts, sites in I-1 zoned areas are subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission. 2 } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-B Sec. 36-319 requires that the front building setback line on I-1 zoned lots be set at least 70 feet off the right-of-way; that the side yards are to be at least 30 feet in width; and that the rear yard setback be at least 40 feet from the lot line. The shown front building line is 30 feet; 70 feet is required. Other setback requirements are met. The Commission can, as part of the site plan review, approve a variance, but the applicant must request such a variance. No variance has been, as this time, requested. The provisions of Sec. 31-210 are applicable to this development. Commercial properties abutting arterial streets shall be limited to 1 driveway or access point for each 300 feet of lot frontage. Shared or common access points are encouraged. If the two drives, as shown, are desired, a variance from this restriction must be sought. This variance must be approved by the City Board of Directors. In order to determine the required parking for the building, it must be determined how much of the building space is allotted to office use and how much to the warehouse use. The ratio of office to warehouse uses, then, needs to be specified. warehousing requires 1 space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area up to 50,000 square feet, then, in addition, 1 space for every 10,000 square feet, plus 5 spaces. Office uses require 1 space for each 400 square feet up to 10,000 square feet; then, for areas between 10,001 and 20,000 square feet, 950 of the basic requirement; then, for areas between 20,001 and 30,000 square feet, 90% of the basic requirement; then, for areas of 30,001 to 40,000 square feet, 85% of the basic requirement; then, for areas of 40,001 square feet and above, 80% of the basic requirement. The parking requirements can range of from 31 spaces if the whole building is warehousing to 139 if the whole building is office. Parking for 83 vehicles is provided. The location of and provision for dumpsters is required to be shown on the plan. No dumpster locations are identified. The Site Plan Review Specialist notes that requirement along Col. Glenn Rd. is 25 1/2 feet minimum with transfer to another area The front buffer requirements appears to be 3 the full buffer feet (or, 17 of the site). met. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-B E. ANALYSIS• The I-1 zoning requires a 70 foot front building setback line. The preliminary plat of the subdivision shows the front building setback line to be at 40 feet. The site plan for Lot 2 shows the front building setback line to be at 30 feet. The applicant, however, has not requested a variance from the 70 foot requirement; yet the site plan is not in conformance with the Ordinance requirement. When the preliminary plat and site plan were submitted, the site was designed under the belief that Col. Glenn Rd. is a Minor Arterial roadway; it is not, though. It is a Principal Arterial, and the applicant had to agree to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way over and above what he had anticipated dedicating. This reduced the front yard of the already designed building by 10 feet, down to the 30 feet shown on the revised drawing. The building, set just 30 feet off a Principal Arterial roadway, occupying nearly half of the length of the front of the lot, will loom over the roadway. It would seem that this is too much mass, too close to the street. The 70 foot setback line, however, is an arbitrary number, and some room for variance from this number may be appropriate. In the I- 2 zoning district, the front setback is 50 feet. In commercial zoning, it can be 25 feet. Staff can support a variance to permit a 40 or 50 foot front setback, but not a 30 foot setback. The ratio of office to warehouse uses has not been specified, and, at this point, a determination whether adequate parking has been furnished can not be made. There are other minor deficiencies in the site plan which can be remedied. The question of the building size on the lot, though, is the overriding issue. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to a variance from the front building setback line being approved. Staff recommends that a variance to permit a 30 foot front building setback be denied. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the nature of the project and reviewed with Mr. 4 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-B McGetrick and the Committee members the concerns in the discussion outline. It was noted that the site plan, as presented, had shown Col. Glenn Rd. to be a Minor Arterial, and that there was inadequate right-of-way and improvements shown to meet the requirement of the Principal Arterial, which it is. Mr. McGetrick responded that the appropriate right-of-way and improvements would be shown on the drawing. The fact that, once the additional right-of-way is dedicated, the building would be too close to Col. Glenn Rd., and that the front landscaping buffer would be inadequate, was discussed. Mr. McGetrick indicated that all Public Works and Neighborhoods and Planing issues would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for review of the site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff reported that the proposed site plan was based on approval of a preliminary plat being considered as Item 4 on the agenda, and that the Commission, in approving the Boen Addition Preliminary Plat, approved a 50 foot building setback line in lieu of the 70 foot required by the Ordinance for property in the I-1 zoning district. Staff pointed out that the site plan which had been submitted shows the building being located 30 feet off the front property line, and explained that the building would have to be reduced in size to conform to the 50 foot building setback established for the site. Staff also pointed out that the site plan of Lot 2 shows two access points within the 365.57 foot frontage of the lot; that Public Works would not normally approve two drives within this frontage, but had agreed to the arrangement due to the entire frontage of the Boen Addition being a total of 776.77 feet, with the drive access point to Lot 1 being located at the west side of the property, thus providing the necessary separation of the drives from each other. Staff pointed out that the Public Works approval of the driveway access arrangement was predicated on the two sites being developed as shown on the two site plans presented. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. He presented the applicant's requested site plan, and stipulated that the building would be reduced in size to conform to the 50 foot front building setback established for the preliminary plat. Staff mentioned that the front Landscaping buffer requirements would have to be met. Commissioner Lichty pointed out that the agenda "write-up" had noted that the applicant had not specified the amount of office versus warehouse floor areas, and that parking requirements would 5 } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z -4662-B depend upon this ratio. He questioned Mr. McGetrick on this issue. Mr. McGetrick responded that, when a building permit is requested, the ratio would be stipulated and the parking requirements versus the parking provided would be reviewed by staff; that sufficient parking to meet Ordinance requirements would be provided. Interim Chairperson Ball called the question, and the preliminary plat, as amended, was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Chachere), and 1 absent. 0 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z -3478-B LOCATION.• Myer's - Conditional Use Permit 1311 Rebsamen Park Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Larry Myers/George P. Davis PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of three mini -warehouse storage buildings on this C-3 zoned site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the east side of Rebsamen Park Road, just south of Cedar Hill Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: Adjacent property to the south is zoned C-3/0-3, and C-3 to the west. Immediately east of this site is railroad right- of-way with C-3 zoning further east. The property to the north, across Cedar Hill Road, is zoned I-2. Surrounding uses include a liquor store and restaurant immediately west of this site with another restaurant and an office building further west, across Rebsamen Park Road. There are several office buildings located south of this site and an auto dealership located across Cedar Hill Road to the north. The proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to this site is gained by utilizing a 30 foot wide, 190 foot long access drive from Rebsamen Park Road. The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan meet minimum ordinance requirements. 4. Screening and Buffers: The street buffer requirement along Cedar Hill Road is 10 feet which does not appear to be provided for by the plan submitted. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO Z- 478-B Because of the size of the expansion proposed, the Landscape ordinance requires the site be brought up to within as much as 100% of the requirement. This includes: a six foot wide perimeter landscape strip, six percent of the interior of the vehicular use area be landscaped with interior islands and a three foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking and building (some flexibility with this requirement is allowed). 5. City Engineer's Comments: Proper grading plans and erosion control plans are required prior to construction. A development permit is required with all structures with FFE's at or above 257 NGVD. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the site plan and be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval. The entrance requires improvement to 27 feet with curb and gutter and separation from other existing parking and drives to provide adequate safe passage for vehicles accessing this site. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Little Rock Waterworks - Additional on-site fire protection required. Fire Department - show fire hydrant location. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposes to construct three mini -warehouse storage buildings on this C-3 zoned property. Building "A" will be a 15 X 260 foot building, Building "B" will be 25 X 280 feet, and Building "C" will be an irregular shaped building of 30 X 70 feet on one end and 20 X 30 feet on the other end. There is an existing 6,660 square foot building on the site which houses a drapery wholesale supply business. Larry's Inc., the drapery wholesale supply business, deals mainly with decorators and builders. During remodels, etc., the decorators have furniture and other items that need to be stored. It is the applicant's feeling that the mini - warehouses will go hand-in-hand with the existing drapery business. Considering the commercial make-up of the 2 i December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3478-B neighborhood, this proposed use should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances 2. Compliance with City Engineer Comments 3. Compliance with Utility and Fire Department Comments SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) George Davis was present, representing the application. He gave a brief description of his proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, discussed his comments, primarily the required improvements to the entrance drive. Mr. Davis indicated that there would be a driveway behind building "B" with doors on both sides of the building. Mr. Scherer stated that an 18 foot wide drive would be needed behind building "B" with adequate turning radius at the east end of the building. Staff briefly discussed the required upgrade in landscaping, vehicular circulation and required rear yard setback. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The applicant, Larry Myers, was present. There were no objectors present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the agenda "write-up". He stated that two letters of opposition have been received by staff. Larry Myers addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of his proposal. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that the revised site plan meets all staff concerns, however the parking area on the west side of the building will need to be revised to include a single a December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3478-B drive instead of two drives. He also stated that the driveway/access to the property will be striped with a fire lane designated. Commissioner Lichty asked what the new buildings would look like. Mr. Myers stated that they would look like mini -storage buildings located next to HQ on Chenal Parkway. He stated that the buildings would have an attractive appearance with an iron fence and increased landscaping. There was a brief discussion concerning the letters of objection, their content and reasons for objection. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the conditions noted in the staff recommendation. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Commissioner Brandon). E. December 1.&, 1995 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO • Z-6072 LOCATION.: OWNER/APPLICANT: Alert Center - Conditional Use Permit 2100 S. Tyler Street Tyler Street Baptist Church/ City of Little Rock by Rick Colclasure PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a Neighborhood Alert Center within the existing education building of the Tyler Street Baptist Church at 2100 S. Tyler Street; zoned R-3. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church is located at the southwest corner of S. Tyler Street and West 21st Street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent properties to the south and west are zoned R-3. The property across S. Tyler to the east is zoned R-3, as is the property across West 21st Street to the North. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The site contains existing asphalt parking and two access drives along Tyler Street. The existing parking will be adequate to serve the proposed Neighborhood Alert Center use. 4. Screening and Buffers: No additional landscaping is required unless the vehicular use area is expanded. In that case, the expanded vehicular use area would have to meet minimum landscape requirements. December 1�., 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6072 5. City Enaineer's Comments: The site lacks minimum right-of-way. Dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way on boundary streets with a 20 foot radial dedication at the corner. Construct sidewalk with handicap ramps along Tyler Street (entire length of the block). 6. Utility Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to occupy a portion of the existing education building of the Tyler Street Baptist Church at 2100 S. Tyler Street as a Neighborhood Alert Center. The intended use as a neighborhood alert center is to provide a wide range of services to area residents. These services will include the use of this facility for public meetings by neighborhood associations and other community based groups. The alert center will also house a staff of at least (3) three city employees to include a neighborhood facilitator, who will work directly with area residents to promote community development and provide services and information helpful to the community. A community police officer and code enforcement officer will be located in the alert center as well. The alert center will operate according to normal business hours with an occasional public meeting at night. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with City Engineer Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Rick Colclasure was present, representing the application. David Scherer, of Public works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. He explained the need for a sidewalk with handicap ramps along Tyler Street running the entire length of the block. Mr. Scherer also explained the required 5 foot right-of-way dedication on boundary streets with a 20 foot radial dedication on the corner. PA } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6072 Staff had no additional comments. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The staff presented a positive recommendation, with conditions, on this application as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 3 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO • 19 FILE NO.:- Z-6075 NAME: Stearn's - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 6401 Sullivan Road OWNER/APPLICANT: David and Theresa Stearns PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 1996 Model 28 X 48 foot double -wide manufactured home on this R-2 zoned site. The applicant is also requesting a waiver from Subdivision Ordinance requirements, as this is not a legal lot of record and has been recently illegally subdivided from a larger tract. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. site Location: The site is located on the east side of Sullivan Road, approximately 1/2 mile north of Raines Road. The site is approximately 3 miles outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent property to the north, south and east is zoned R-2. The property across Sullivan Road to the west is also zoned R-2. The adjacent properties contain single family residential structures, with 2 mobile homes located across Sullivan Road to the west. The proposal will have little impact on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The applicant proposes to access this site by utilizing an existing gravel driveway which is located on the adjacent property to the south. 4. SCreening and Buffers: No Comments December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6075 5. City Encrineer's Comments: Sullivan Road is a minor arterial, dedicate right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline. Asphalt or concrete driveways are required and should be 5 feet from the lot line as a minimum. 6. utility Comments: Little Rock Water Works - Execution of a Pre -Annexation Agreement and approval of the City is required to obtain water service. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the placement of a 1996 Model 28 X 48 foot (1,344 square feet) double -wide manufactured home on an R-2 zoned site. This property is outside the city limits but within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The zoning in the area is principally R-2 which requires the conditional use permit. This is not a legal lot of record and has been recently illegally subdivided from a larger tract of land. The applicant has requested a waiver from Subdivision Ordinance requirements regarding this illegal subdivision. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with City Engineer Comments 2. Compliance with Utility Comments 3. Legally platting this lot or receiving a waiver from subdivision requirements. 4. The manufactured home is not to be placed on the property until the platting issue is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) David Stearns was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief introduction of the proposal. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6075 David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with the Committee. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, explained to the Committee that this is not a legal lot of record and needs to be properly subdivided. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, explained that the applicant could go forward with the conditional use permit request, and ask for a waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The applicant, David Stearns, was present. There were no objectors present. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, presented the item and a staff recommendation of approval with the conditions noted in the agenda "write-up". He also stated that Mr. Stearns has requested a waiver from Subdivision Ordinance requirements, as this is not a legal lot of record and was subdivided before it was sold to him. David Stearns addressed the Commission in support of his application. He stated that he bought the property in good faith, and was under the impression that it was a legal piece of property. There was a brief discussion between the Commission and staff regarding the platting of the property and the waiver request. Mr. Stearns stated that he could not afford to pay for the platting of the property and therefore would request the waiver. Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Staff supports the conditional use permit and the waiver request. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit application, as recommended by staff, and the request for waiver of subdivision ordinance requirements. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, and 1 absent. 3 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO • 20 FILE NO.: Z-6079 NAME: walnut Valley Christian Academy - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 19,012 Cantrell Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Walnut Valley Christian Academy/ The Wilcox Group by Steve Kinzler and Larry Kirchner PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested for the phased construction of a private school on this R-2 zoned, 20 acre site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed site is located on the north side of Cantrell Road, approximately one mile east of Highway 300. This site is approximately 1/4 mile outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent property to the north, east and west is zoned R-2. The property across Cantrell Road to the south is also zoned R-2. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The total number of proposed off-street parking spaces exceeds minimum ordinance requirements. However, if the applicant can foresee a need for a greater number of parking spaces for special events, off-street, paved areas must be provided. 4. Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet Highway No. 10 Overlay and Landscape Ordinance requirements. Residential properties to the north, east and west must be screened from this site with either a 6 foot high wood fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen plantings. A sprinkler system is required to water landscaped areas. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6079 5. City Engineer's Comments: A grading permit, APDL&E permit and confirmation of flood status with Pulaski County Floodplain Administrator are required before construction. The plan as submitted is rejected. There should be a traffic impact study done before plan can be approved. The preliminary recommendations are as follows: 1. Create a 40 foot loop drive that enters on the west and exits on the east frontage, this will allow parking on each side and two lanes functioning as one-way traffic. The parking as shown will not be adequate and there does not exist adequate off-site overflow parking. 2. Construct 1.5 lanes on Highway 10 with curb and gutter and a 6 foot sidewalk. 3. Contribute $75,000 for traffic signal at the exit drive to enable left turning from campus. Signal will be installed once traffic counts warrant and AHTD approval is granted. 4. Starting time should not coincide with peak hour traffic. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Little Rock Waterworks - A pro rata front footage charge of $15/front foot applies in additional to normal charges. (666 feet x $15 - $9,990.00). Execution of a Pre -Annexation Agreement and approval of the City is required to obtain water service. Fire Department - Fire hydrants are to be no more than five feet from curb, facing outward. Fire lane must be able to support heavy equipment. 7. ,Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the phased construction of a private school on the 20 acre, R-2 zoned, tract of land at 19,012 Cantrell Road. The site is approximately 1/4 mile outside the Little Rock city limits, but within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The school will be composed of grades kindergarten through 12th grade. Each grade will have four classrooms with 2 December 12, 19-95 SUBDIVISION. ITEM NO 20 (Cont - ) FILE NO.; Z-6079 approximately 20 students per classroom. Overall, the school is estimating the teacher and staff positions to total 100 with approximately 1,040 students. The site will also include a gymnasium, football field and playground areas. S. staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City's Highway 10 Overlay District Ordinance regarding building setbacks, landscaping, signage and parking lot lighting 2. Compliance with Screening and Buffers Comments 3. Compliance with City Engineer Comments 4. Compliance with utility and Fire Department Comments SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Representatives of the Wilcox Group and the Walnut Valley Christian Academy were present, representing the application. David Scherer, of Public Works, reviewed his comments with the Committee, primarily the need for a 40 foot loop drive that enters on the west and exits on the east frontage. Mr. Scherer also noted that the parking shown on the site plan would not be adequate for special events at the school and adequate off-site overflow parking does not exist. Steve Rinzler, of the Wilcox Group, stated that they had no problems with any of the comments and would submit a letter of compliance to staff. Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, briefly discussed the parking issue with the applicant. He stated that the applicant should make provisions for all parking necessary for school functions and not rely on adjacent nonpaved areas for overflow parking. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6079 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The Staff presented a positive recommendation, with conditions, on this application as there were no further issues for resolution. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. N December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 21 Z -3592-H Owner: Applicant: Westrock Partnership Robert M. Brown Location: West of Koger Office Park and east of Bowman Road; either side of the extension of Executive Center Drive Request: Rezone 42.529 acre tract from MF -12 and 01 to 0-1 and 0-3 Purpose: Develop as 7 lot office subdivision Size: 42.529± acres Existing Use: Vacant, wooded SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Office Warehouse Development, zoned POD South - OS zoned Buffer and Single -Family residential, zoned R-2 East - Office Park Development, zoned 0-3 West - Single -Family residences and Vacant tract, zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Dedicate right-of-way for Bowman Road and Executive Center Drive per Master Street Plan standards. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the I-430 District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Low Density Multifamily. The request is for Office. After review the Neighborhoods and Planning Staff recommends that the area be shown for Suburban Office. STAFF ANALYSIS The request is to rezone these properties, totaling 42.5± acres, from 0-1 Quiet Office district and MF -12 Multifamily district to 0-1 and 0-3 General Office district. This item is associated with Westrock Office Addition preliminary plat (5-801-A). The proposed zoning pattern is established by December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 21 Z -3592-H (Cont.) the extension of Executive Center Drive from its current terminus westward to Bowman Road. Approximately 21.2 acres to be zoned 0-1 are located on the south side of proposed Executive Center Drive. Of these 21.2 acres, approximately 7.5± acres are now zoned MF -12. The remaining acreage is currently zoned 0-1. The OS zoned property to the south is not included in the rezoning application. Approximately 21.3 acres are located on the north side of proposed Executive Center Drive. This property is currently zoned MF -12 and is proposed to be zoned 0-3. The proposed office zoning would appear to be a logical extension of the zoning pattern established by Koger Office Park, adjacent to the east. An office warehouse development is under construction directly north of this property. An OS zoned buffer, varying in width from 200 feet to 130 feet, is located along the southern perimeter of this property and separates the site from the single family residential neighborhood to the south. The I-430 District Land Use Plan reflects the current zoning by recommending multifamily for those properties currently zoned MF -12. Staff would recommend amending the Plan to show Suburban Office for this site. Along with the OS zoned buffer, the 0-1 and 0-3 zoning provide a logical transition from the Sandpiper neighborhood to the more intensely developed properties closer to Kanis Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested 0-1 and 0-3 zoning. Staff also recommends approval of an amendment to the I-430 District Land Use Plan to Suburban Office. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Robert Brown and David Jones were present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and recommended approval of the rezoning request and an amendment to the I-430 District Land Use Plan. The rezoning request and the Land Use Plan Amendment were placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 2 December 12, 1995 ITEM NO.: 22 Z-6078 Owner: Dorothy Williams Applicant: Dorothy Williams Location: 1006 West 34th Street Request: Rezone from R-4 to C-1 Purpose: Convert existing residential structure into a two chair beauty salon. Size: .16 acres Existing Use: One story, frame residential structure SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residences, zoned R-4 South - Vacant lots and Single -Family residences, zoned R-4 East - Single -Family residences, zoned R-4 West - Vacant lot and Single -Family residences, zoned R-4 ENGINEERING COMMENTS Any substantial construction will require flood proofing to above elevation 258 NGVD. Recommend denial due to lack of on-site parking and driveways. LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Central City District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. The request is for Commercial use. The surrounding area is Single Family. The site is mid -block on a local residential street. Staff cannot support a change in the Plan to Commercial in the location at this time. STAFF ANALYSIS The request is to rezone this lot from R-4, Two -Family district, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial district. The property is currently occupied by a one-story, single family December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Z-6078 (Cont.) residential structure. The applicant proposes to convert this structure into a two chair beauty salon. The property is located near the southern fringe of a large residential district. The surrounding properties are almost exclusively single family and two family homes. There are several small pockets of -C-3 zoned properties scattered about the neighborhood. Every one of the C-3 zoned properties nearest this site are either vacant or occupied by a residential dwelling. The property has only a single -wide driveway which could accommodate two vehicles. The Central City District Land Use Plan recommends single family for this property. Staff cannot support a change in the Plan to Commercial for the site. If it is the applicant's desire to establish a beauty salon in this neighborhood, there are already several commercially zoned properties within close proximity to this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the requested C-1 zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The applicant, Dorothy Williams, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. The Commission was informed that one letter of opposition, from Mr. A. C. Cook, had been received. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, discussed the Central City District Land Use Plan in relation to this site. He noted the unused C-3 sites already in place throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Carney stated that staff was opposed to the spot zoning of a lot in the middle of a residential block. He concluded by noting the lack of on-site parking for the proposed beauty shop. Dorothy Williams addressed the Commission in support of the application. Ms. Williams stated that she had purchased this abandoned house and had remodeled it with the hope of relocating her beauty shop to this site. Ms. Williams stated that she had spoken with several neighborhood residents, none of whom had voiced opposition to the beauty shop. She stated that she would construct a paved parking lot on the back portion of the property, taking access from the alley and from West 34th Street. 2 } December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Z-6078 (Cont.) Commissioner Chachere asked if Staff could support a PD -0 to allow the beauty shop. Mr. Carney responded that staff could not support a nonresidential use of the property. Commissioner Chachere stated that she had spoken with several persons who were concerned about vacant properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Carney responded that the neighborhood was relatively stable, with many nice homes and a small number of vacant structures in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Lichty asked if a conditional use permit would allow the proposed beauty shop. He noted the Commission's previous approval of a day-care family home in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Carney responded that a conditional use permit would not allow a beauty shop in the R-4 district. He stated that a day-care family home was designed to allow the occupant of a residence to keep from 6 to 10 children in their home but that the primary use of the property would remain residential. Mr. Carney noted that Ms. Williams was not proposing any residential occupancy of the property on 34th Street; that the entire structure would be used for the beauty shop. Commissioner Ball stated that he was concerned about the impact of the beauty shop on adjacent residents. Commissioner Rahman asked if Ms. Williams understood the application could be resubmitted as a PD -0. Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, responded that the item could be resubmitted as a PD -0 but that staff would still not support it since the proposed use was nonresidential. Ms. Williams stated that she is aware of other beauty shops which were located in residential areas. Commissioner McCarthy stated that she was concerned about the impact of commercial zoning on the residential neighborhood. She asked what measures could be taken so that the property would revert to residential if the beauty shop ever ceased operation. Commissioner Chachere responded that a PD -0 would accomplish that. Mr. Carney reminded the Commission that a PD -0 was still a rezoning and that staff was not supportive of nonresidential zoning at this location. Commissioner Chachere made a motion that the application be amended to a PD -0 and approved for a 2 -chair beauty salon with staff to work with the applicant to obtain a site plan which addressed issues such as parking, landscaping and screening. 3 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 Z-6078 (Cont.) The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined that no amendment to the Central City District Land Use Plan was necessary due to the size of the site. 0 } December 12, 1995 ITEM NO 23 FILE NO - G-23-243 Name: Alley abandonment adjacent to 500 East Markham Street Location• Located along the north property line of Lots 7- 12, Block 2, and Lot 7, Block 3, Pope's Addition to the City of Little Rock. Owner/Applicant- Little Rock Newspapers and Union Pacific Railroad/ George R. Toombs, II Reouest• Exclusive abandonment of the east/west alley to be utilized by the adjacent office building as a terrace and loading dock. STAFF REVIEW 1. Public Need for this Riaht-of-Wav There is no public need for this alley right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this alley right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way --on Adiacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The east/west alley is impassable because of an existing elevated loading dock and a fence which runs through the alley. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the south one-half of this alley will be used as a terrace and loading dock to serve the adjacent office building, part of which is proposed to house the Museum of Science and Natural history currently located in MacArthur Park. December .L2, 1995 •:•� ITEM NO • 23 (Cont.)-- FILE NO.: G-23-243 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The area contains a variety of uses which include commercial and industrial. The 20 foot platted alley is impassable and is not used as access by adjacent property owners to the east. Abandoning this alley right-of-way should have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the East End Civic League and Downtown Neighborhood Association have been notified of the public hearing. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The alley is not presently in use. None of the utility companies stated any need to retain any portions of the abandoned right-of-way for easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 10. Public welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this alley right-of-way will not affect the public welfare and safety. It will allow for the development of a terrace and loading dock to serve the adjacent office building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the exclusive abandonment of the alley right-of-way. ,SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item to the Committee. There were no additional comments on the item from Public Works or the Planning Staff. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-243 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application as there were no further issues for resolution. There was no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 3 December 1995 ITEM NO • 24 FILE NO.: G-23-244 Name. East 9th Street Right -of - Way Abandonment Location: Located between Block 3 and Block 6, Clinton Park Addition to the City of Little Rock (East 9th Street and J. L. Hawkins Street) C-wner/ADylicant: The Wrape Family Charitable Trust and Arkansas Power and Light Company/Meredith P. Catlett. Reauest: To abandon that portion of East 9th Street lying between Block 3 and Block 6, Clinton Park Addition for private use by adjacent property owner. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for this Right-of-Wav There is no public need for this right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right- of-way. ight- of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The proposed area of abandonment contains a small, chip seal driveway which is used by utilities to access the adjacent property. Otherwise, the area is overgrown and not used. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of this abandonment will be incorporated into the adjacent property and sold to the Archer Daniels Midland Company for its business December ) 1995 ITEM No. • 24 (Cont ) FILE NO,: G-23-244 purposes. No improvements are currently planned for the property. 6. Nein b�oThood Land Use and Effect The surrounding uses include industrial to the north and west, and residential to the east and south. The right-of-way contains a small driveway, used by utilities to access this site and adjacent property to the west. Abandoning this right-of-way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Ngighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. All abutting property owners as well as the East End Civic League and the East Little Rock Neighborhood Association have been notified of the public hearing. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The entire right-of-way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement and the south 30 feet will be retained for ingress/egress purposes. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 10. Public welfare and Safety Issues Abandoning this right-of-way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this right- of-way subject to the entire area of the abandoned right-of- way being retained as a utility and drainage easement and the south 30 feet of the abandoned right-of-way being retained for ingress/egress to the adjacent AP&L property. SrBnTVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item to the Committee. 2 December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-244 Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, explained to the Committee that the entire area of the proposed abandonment would need to be retained as a drainage and utility easement, and the south 30 feet would need to be retained as ingress/egress to adjacent AP&L property. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) The Staff presented a positive recommendation on this application, subject to the area of the abandoned right-of- way being retained as a utility and drainage easement, and the south 30 feet of the abandoned right-of-way being retained for ingress and egress to the adjacent AP&L property. There were no objectors to this matter. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. 3 December ) 1995 ywiier'!1 `,/pl ,cant e Reauest• STAFF REVIEW• Riverfront Drive Right - of -Way Abandonment Located at Riverfront Drive, north of and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. John Haley and Chris Robertson/Joe D. White To abandon the excess right-of-way for Riverfront Drive, north and adjacent to the Little Rock Western Railroad right-of-way. 1. Public Need for this Right -of -Way Public Works requests that the area of the proposed abandonment be retained as a drainage easement. Also, Public Works prefers not to close area in Parcel No. 2, as it is not a buildable area. Parks and Recreation recommend denial of the abandonment of Parcel No. 1. The area needs to be retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need for Right-of-way on Adjacent Streets The applicant is dedicating an additional 45 feet of right-of-way for Riverfront Drive. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Parcel 1 of the proposed abandonment contains the 30 foot wide Jessie Dr. access and utility easement, with the remainder of the parcel primarily overgrown with weeds and brush. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and utility easement to the north. Parcel 2 of the proposed abandonment is primarily overgrown with trees and brush. December ; 1995 i 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, the area of these rights-of-way would be retained by the owner for a possible future office development. The area contains mainly a mixture of office and commercial uses. The uses include office, office - warehouse and mini -warehouses to the north and an auto dealership and retail commercial to the south. Abandoning these rights-of-way will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Positiq_n No neighborhood position has been voiced. 8 Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The rights-of-way will be retained as utility and drainage easements. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will extend to adjacent property owners. 10. Public welfare and Safetv Issues Abandoning these rights-of-way will not affect the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed abandonment, as Public Works requests that Parcel No. 2 not be abandoned because it is not a buildable area and Parks and Recreation requests to retain Parcel No. 1 for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 22, 1995) Joe White was present, representing the application. He gave a brief description of the proposal. David Scherer and Bill Henry, of Public Works, reviewed their comments with the Committee. December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-245 Monte Moore, of the Planning Staff, stated that a letter had been received from the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department. He stated that Parks is recommending denial of the abandonment of Parcel No. 1, as the area needs to be retained for use as part of the City's Master Bikeway Plan. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 12, 1995) Staff presented the item, stating that the applicant has not submitted all the required items to complete the application process. Staff recommended deferral of this item until the January 30, 1996 agenda. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the January 30, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. kc •4t 1 ) 4p e 7AosJdA a+ sec',.>.1e 01 jr,mon r+elicq-4 > > > \(-- \ > ri,pi • \ , \ > \ \ \ > , _cr\ \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ Cr" Q r , > 4+o > \ \ • \ ' \ \ O Q _Ns \ 40 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q > \ \\ \ a \ \ \ 2 v o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' 0 0 Q c0 • • \ ' I\ \ • % • 1 a)a) ✓1 .4-. > 40 > , \ \ > \ \ o > \ \ Z \ , \ , > -- \ \ \ \ \ \ > > \ \ c' 3 14.1 u: > \ \ \ \ \ > , \ cp coe> > > \ > \ \ > \ N+ V X \ X \ X \ \ \ cv`./ > \ \ \ \ \ \ a X (4 > > \ \ \ > k X - CI c43 > \ \ \ a 1 1 1 X O > > \ \ > \ \ \ W to \ \ \ \ \ ‘ \ \ \ a CC � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ w N > > > > > > > 1 > > I— CD O \ \ > X > \ \ \ > u,Na \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 \ _ Z O u,d , > \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 c1) rn > > \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CJ) _ d o > > > > \ \ \ \ \ ‘ MP Ar > , \ \ > \ a \ \ ( 2 \ , s \ \ > \ \ \ LI) y (13 N \ \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ Z Zh- -i w LL \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ °- ,n w \ > > \ \ > > > ' \ 1p U % > 1 > N. > ). > \ Z d 1, LU Q Z I— LU 0' o • W Z Q J W Z W w Z _ Q —I cn w Q — up ...,r, J Z OC Po w -6 u) co N p m J Z tc co oJ Co n M cc Z = cc Q cc Z CC Z = m - J w `) CC Q L11 O F- Z -) Y J =I Q Q W O F- Z '� Y = W n m U Z ¢ .Iw O Z< o O 2 Z W s o z < = z OO z-c 0 O zi„ W Q = = U Q 4 c = O 0 < "c < 0 ¢ Q 0 = O V 4 2 [nC� COMCr000 J =I t— mI0IcoMnC = < 0 J = December 12, 1995 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.