Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 19 1995subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being eight in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the August 8, 1995 meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: Brad Walker, Chairman Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Doyle Daniel Pam Adcock Joe Selz Mizan Rahman Diane Chachere Suzanne McCarthy Ron Woods One Open Position City Attorney: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Kingwood Place Addition, Lots M-1 and M-2 -- Preliminary Plat (S -1059-A) B. Jimerson Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Bikeway -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6000) C. Community Bakery -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -4563-A) II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Johnson Ranch Village -- Preliminary Plat (S-1074) 2. Leawood Place -- Preliminary Plat (S-1077) III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: 3. Bowman Road -- Amended Short -Form PCD (Z -5756-B) 4. Ramser -- Short -Form PD -O (Z-6020) 5. One Source Home Center -- Amended Long -Form PCD (Z -4933-D) 6. Ten -Mile House -- Long -Form PRD (Z-5908) 7. Embassy Suites -- Amended Long -Form PD -C (Z -5887-A) IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 8. Portoni -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -6031-A) 9. Professional Educators School -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6034) 10. Calvary Apostolic U. P. C. -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -4325-A) 11. Givens -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6026) 12. Seventh Day Adventist -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6032) Agenda, Page 2 13. Hundley -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6033) 14. Promised Land -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6036) 15. Hank's Furniture Warehouse -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-6037) V. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 16. Baptist Health Laundry Facility -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -2079-G) 16a. Cypress Properties Office Building -- Zoning Site Plan Review (Z -5472-D) VI. REZONING• 17. (Z-6031) 6701 Shaner Circle, from R-2 to AF VII. OTHER MATTERS: 18. Parkway Office Subdivision, Lot 2 -- Sidewalk waiver (S -934-A) 19. Valley Drive -- Street Name Change (G-25-170) 20. Easement Abandonment -- Tract "A", Pleasant Valley 2nd. Addition (G-23-240) September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S -1059-A NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE ADDITION, LOTS M-1 & M-2 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet south of Pine Valley Road and 600 feet northwest of Sunset Circle. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• H. Bradley Walker Joe White WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 666-4242 374-1666 AREA: 2.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 500± ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a private street in an access easement for access from a public street to the lots. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a two -lot subdivision of an existing lot, and proposes to provide access to the two lots by way of a private street in an access easement across another owner's tract which lies between the applicant's tract and a public street. Since the public street, Pine Valley Rd., is a dedicated right- of-way and is a partially improved roadway for a portion of its length from Sunset Circle, the applicant proposes to extend a driving surface, to be in keeping with the width and type of the existing roadway, from the present end of the pavement to the proposed private street access point. A variance is requested to be approved by the Planning Commission for the private street and access easement. No other variances or waivers are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a two -lot subdivision. Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a private street and access easement to provide the needed access to the two lots. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently heavily wooded and is on an extremely steep hillside. There is approximately 100 feet of elevation change across the two lots, dropping from the southeast corner of the east lot to the northwest corner of the west lot. There is approximately a 20 foot elevation differential form the north edge of the lots to Pine Valley Rd. where the proposed private street is to intersect; however, there is a 30-50 foot deep draw which lies between the lots and Pine Valley Rd. The existing zoning of the site is R-2, with R-2 zoning being the exclusive zoning district of all surrounding land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff provided the following comments: 1) There is required information missing from the preliminary plat. A complete listing of the deficiencies is available from the Public Works staff. 2) The Pine Valley right-of-way has significant horizontal and vertical alignment changes. The road has a dedicated right-of-way; however, there only exists a 10' asphalt lane that dead -ends at the residence opposite the planned private drive. Pine Valley will require improvements to minimum City standards to the point of access to this private drive. There needs to be a proper turn -around constructed at the end of Pine Valley Rd. 3) The preliminary plat indicates that an access easement will provide access to lots which do not abut a public street; therefore, the street should be designed as a private residential street with construction conforming to City standards. Waivers of the grades, radii, turn- around, width of street, and provision for open drainage should be sought (unless the street will conform to the standards of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances). Private streets require Public Work's approval of the construction and plans. 4) 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 approved by the City Engineer. Any planned drainage ditches must be shown on the preliminary plat. Show water courses entering the subdivision and the planned exit points for drainage. Easements off-site for this drainage may be required. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 - Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Pump stations will not be acceptable. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Their drawing proposes a 15' easement at the perimeter of the subdivision, and a 151 easement straddling the Lot M -1-M-2 line. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. commented that easements will be required. They show a 10' easement along the east, south, and north perimeter of the subdivision. The Fire Department notes that the grade of the roadways to the lots are far too steep for fire apparatus to negotiate in inclement weather; that this could keep the fire department from getting to the location. A maximum grade of 14% needs to be maintained for all roadways. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planning Commission". Sec. 31-207 states: "The design standards shall conform to public street standards as specified in this chapter." The applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval of a private street in an access easement to provide the required access to the lots. Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the following be identified: the type of subdivision being proposed; the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed record book and page number or instrument number; any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions; and, the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal. Sec. 31-89 requires that on the plat, in addition to the information shown, the following be provided: the design of the street improvements; the front yard setback; natural features (i.e., drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, and watercourses) and cultural features (i.e., bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power lines, and park areas); a storm drainage analysis and preliminary storm drainage plan; the names of recorded subdivision abutting the proposed site, with plat book and page number or instrument number; the names of all owners of landlocked parcels which are contiguous to the subdivision; an accurate 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A physical description of all classifications of the plat Proposed PAGIS monuments are E. ANALYSIS• monuments; and the zoning area and of all abutting lands. to be identified. If a subdivision of land meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the approval of that subdivision of land cannot be denied. The R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 60 feet and a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that either a lot have frontage on a public street or a private street. It requires approval by the Planning Commission for a private street, and sets certain tests for approval of a private street. (See. Sec. 31-207) The Subdivision Ordinance requires that a private street meet the requirements of the Ordinance as to design standards. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for size. The request for access to the lots by way of a private street in an access easement meet the requirements for approval. The question, though, is can a roadway be constructed which meets City standards within the access easement which has been indicated on the plan? The City Engineer states that it cannot. The Fire Department reports that the grades which would be necessary for the private street to follow the contours shown would be too steep. The requirement of Sec. 31-207, wherein the requirement that private streets meet public street standards for design and construction, cannot, according to the information shown and furnished, be met. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of preliminary plat due to access to the site not being able to be provided which will meet Code. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995) No one was present to present the application. Staff outlined the request, and the Planning and Public works staff discussed with the Committee members the staff concerns noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) The Chairman identified this item for public hearing and recognized Deputy City Attorney, Stephen Giles, for purposes of offering commentary prior to the hearing. Mr. Giles recognized this as an opportunity to once again deal with planned areas within the city limits. He pointed out that he would make a preliminary statement and bring out a couple of issues he felt needed to be discussed. Giles pointed out that several commissioners had indicated apparent confusion about the role of the Planning Commission in this matter. He pointed out that this is not a zoning issue or rezoning application and it is a subdivision plat. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance establishes land use districts and allows residential uses. These uses are located on property is the subject of the Subdivision Regulations. The issue here according to Mr. Giles is whether or not this plat as submitted meets the requirements for the Subdivision Ordinance. He also pointed for the record that he is an adjacent property owner owning a small portion of Tract M. His property fronting upon Kingwood Drive. Giles stated that he made this statement in order to place it in the record. He felt he could participate in this hearing because he was not a voting member of the Planning Commission. Giles then moved to his commentary to issues involving subdivision plats. He specifically covered the issue of the Robert Richardson replat and the Robinwood-Foxcroft neighborhood. The ramifications of the decision in that case and how they apply in this matter. Giles then pointed out that the Planning Commission's only role in this application is a determination as to whether the plat conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance. He pointed out that the Planning Commission's secondary role in this application is the determination of the appropriateness of the extension of a private road to serve the lots. Giles concluded his remarks by briefly reading various excerpts from the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to private drives, the replatting of properties and this plat in general. Commissioner Willis then acting as Chairman asked that Mr. White, representing the Engineering firm of White-Daters, proceed with making a presentation. He discussed the design elements of the modified roadway to provide the private street from Pine Valley Road to the two lots that will be served. Mr. White pointed out that the design presented for this private street meets all of Public Works' design criteria. He pointed out that there were no waiver requests attendant to this application. 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont_.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A Mr. white identified Mr. Gene Ludwig who was attending the meeting with him who could offer information if required. Mr. Ludwig then came forward to address the Commission and offered comments to the effect that people should not be concerned about these two lots being a forerunner to a larger development of this area. That is not the intent here and various conditions written into this proposal restricts any further development of this property. The covenants that are being offered by Mr. Brad Walker and two adjacent property owners will be part of the record if approval of this plat is obtained. After the conclusion of Mr. Ludwig's remarks, the Chairman then directed attention to numerous cards that had been submitted by persons attending and wishing to speak against this application. There were 13 of these cards. He requested that if there was a spokesperson for the neighborhood and the objection, let that person come forward but he would not limit anyone's ability to speak on the matter. Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, at this point asked the Chairman for permission to insert staff commentary on this subject in as much as the staff has not offered his position or recommendation. Lawson pointed out that the Staff does recommend approval if the plat as being in conformance with the Ordinance. He stated, Public Works should be heard on this matter. A brief discussion was inserted at this point concerning the covenants opposed by Mr. Walker and offered by Mr. Ludwig. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, addressed these as being important elements of the application filing, especially for the comfort level of the neighborhood and purchasers of the lots. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works, for purposes of that City department's comments. Scherer offered a full review of the application and its construction elements as proposed involving Pine Valley Road and the private street. He stated the plan that had been submitted appears to meet all residential street standards for a private street as required by Ordinance. Scherer described Pine Valley Road and this area where it leaves Sunset Lane and traverses the hillside toward this development as being a very narrow 10± foot wide driveway. It in no way meets minimum street standards for residential street. He then offered additional commentary on communication between his office and Mr. Walker and Mr. White concerning the design requirements Public Works would insist upon for Pine Valley Road. Scherer stated that Pine Valley needs to be improved beyond its existing 10 foot width. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the Chairman and Mr. Scherer discussing the design requirements of the private 0 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A street and Pine Valley. Scherer stated that his assumption was that Pine Valley Road's improvements would include curb and gutter. Commissioner Doyle Daniel then inserted a question that he addressed to Mr. White. His question had to do with whether or not Pine Valley Road would be properly expanded in width to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. White's response was yes. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Phillip Anderson who came forward as a spokesperson for the neighborhood. He identified himself as being an attorney with the firm of Williamson. and Anderson. He stated for the record that he represented Chuck and Margaret Ensminger, Walter Hussman and his wife and Ben Hussman. Mr. Anderson presented a graphic outlining the location of various lots of the persons that he represented and their relationships to the application. He then moved his comments to discussion of the process involved in this application. Mr. Anderson's' first point offered was that he took issue with Public Works' statement that there was not a waiver. He then identified that Mr. Gene Levy would address the Commission with some specific issues and that he would then be followed by Mr. Walter Hussman. He stated that he wanted to assure the record reflected there was a general plan for this neighborhood. He then entered into some commentary about the Staff. He thought that perhaps in this instance the Staff of the Planning Commission was not as diligent as with most developers when dealing with this application of its chairman. He included a comment that perhaps there was procedural items and issues that were not covered in a manner that other owners and developers would perhaps be required to follow. Mr. Anderson then offered additional statements in support of his accusation that staff had not required the proper review and submittal of information. He itemized the various items from the Subdivision Ordinance including names, various forms and other submittal requirements. He specifically pointed out that a letter required by Ordinance was supposed to have been faxed to him, but was in fact, not ever delivered. He concluded his remarks by again offering a statement that the Commission should be aware by his presentation that all of the requirements of Ordinance have not been met; thereby, bringing into question the issue of whether or not the plat is complete and in conformance with the Ordinance. Mr. Anderson pointed out that this is the one opportunity for the neighborhood to have its input and review the information in the plat. He then raised a question while leaving the lectern that the issue of the cul-de-sac length should be addressed. He specifically directed that to Mr. White and then asked that Mr. Levy come forward and address this matter. Mr. Levy came 7 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A forward and offered his thought on the cul-de-sac length issue as being that he felt the street was being extended greater than the 1,000 feet allowed by Ordinance. A lengthy discussion then followed involving Commissioner Willis, acting Chairman, and the attorney for the neighborhood. The discussion primarily centered upon the Staff's involvement and the filing of this application and whether their actions were appropriate. Commissioner Putnam then offered a comment that the Commission and the persons speaking to the matter from the audience were getting away from the issue at hand, and we should return to the application. Jim Lawson, the Planning Director, then added a comment at this point that many of the issues raised for discussion by the objectors' attorney are matters of record in the Staff's office. We do not have to be told what these items are as far as the persons' address, names and such. Mr. Gene Levy then came forward to offer his comments and objection to this application, and in support of those offered by Mr. Anderson. He briefly described Pine Valley Road, its current physical state. Mr. Levy then presented a series of photographic representations of the neighborhood. He presented a map and then indicated the ravine that is principally involved in the creation of the private roadway. His presentation illustrated the neighborhood environment. Mr. Levy then moved his comments to describe the individual properties along Pine Valley Road and the adjacent area to the subject plat. Identifying persons building these homes and the architects involved, Mr. Lawson injected a comment into the presentation offering to the Commission that the presentation as being made was entering into land use kinds of concerns and getting away from the plat at hand. The Chairman again admonished the presenters for the objectors to maintain the issue at hand and not stray to other issues and being redundant. Mr. Levy then returned to his presentation and offered some photographic and other graphic materials indicating in the topographic, the physical layout of the area and the structural involvement of the neighborhood. Mr. Levy added additional commentary about the length of the street combining Pine Valley as well as the private road added further comments about the location of the turnaround device. He also stated that a variance had not been requested for the lengthy roadway and one should be required. Mr. Levy then offered a lengthy discussion on the construction involved in placing the private roadway across the ravine. He : September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • _S -1059-A offered a estimate from computations that he had available to him that it would take approximately 16,000 cubic yards of dirt to accomplish the private road construction as identified by Mr. White's drawing. Mr. Levy offered a statement that it would take 1,600 dump truck loads in order to move that much dirt into the neighborhood. He also offered that it would do severe violence to the neighborhood streets. After additional lengthy comments on design of the private road and dangers to the neighborhood, Mr. Levy stated that his estimate was that it would cost $250,000 and off-site improvements in order to access these two lots. Mr. Levy then offered extensive commentary by quoting sections of the Ordinance dealing with the design of private streets. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Levy additionally added to the commentary that he had previously offered about the design and the floor work that would have to be accomplished and the excavation and change of grade to accommodate the roadway and the ravine. Commissioner Willis then stated that he had a question for Staff as to whether or not Pine Valley Road currently is wide enough to service emergency vehicles. David Scherer, of Public Works, responded by saying that in its current condition it is not but it has been offered by Mr. Walker to widen the street to a sufficient width to accommodate vehicles. During the course of a lengthy discussion between several commissioners and Mr. Scherer, the Deputy City Attorney posed a question as to whether or not the 27 foot street could be constructed within the 50 foot right- of-way existing on Pine Valley without moving into the creek. Scherer indicated that he could not determine that with the information he had at hand. A brief discussion was held between Commissioner Rahman and Scherer dealing with whether or not permits of various types would be needed for soil control and erosion and flood control. Scherer indicated that there were permits for most of these, but there would not be permit requirements for environmental concerns. He indicated that if there were permits required from state level those would be the kind of things that he would work with the applicant on. Commissioner Putnam then stated that he would like to ask Mr. Levy a question. The question was whether improvement requirements to Pine Valley Road included in the $250,000 estimate projected by Mr. Levy. Mr. Levy responded by saying that there were improvement requirements approximately 10 feet of widening into Pine Valley included into that figure. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walter Hussman who came forward to offer comments and objections. Mr. Hussman offered a brief history of the neighborhood from his perspective having moved into that neighborhood several years ago. He offered that there 11 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A had been no changes since 1950's style development area until such time as the Planning Commission moved into the area. He offered a concern that weighs very much on the minds of the people of the neighborhood, that being the potential for future sales of additional lots. Mr. Hussman then described the dimensional relationships of his lots and his adjacent neighbors to the Pine Valley Road. He stated that this development would fundamentally change the neighborhood. He stated that he felt like the widening or the construction of Pine Valley Road to the standards proposed would impact the adjacent yard area or the creek side of the right-of-way. A lot of trees would be moved or cut from this site during this project. Mr. Hussman stated his observation was that the plan offered by Mr. Walker keeps changing. He offered some thoughts on the projected numbers of dump trucks and fill material to be brought to the site. He then offered comments on the economics of selling these two lots with the enormous cost of tax the physical improvements that will have to be installed. Mr. Hussman then offered his perspective on how many lots could be obtained from this valley area if additional development is to occur that being some 45 in number. Developing everything down to the river that is not now developed. He then offered commentary on the geology of the area bluffs overlooking the Arkansas River and the attractiveness of maintaining the current development status along the river overview. Mr. Hussman then offered comments related to an agreement presumably entered into with Mrs. Law, a current property owner. Such agreement had not been presented to him and he had not had the opportunity to observe its content. Mr. Hussman continued his commentary by stating that he had Mr. Gene Levy, a design professional, as well as the Mehlburger Firm's staff present. The professionals have reviewed these proposals and prepared their commentary. He stated that these gentlemen were reluctant because they work with this Commission and would feel uncomfortable dealing with this matter in the fashion required. Mr. Hussman concluded his remarks by requesting that the Commission not do this to him, to his neighborhood or to his city. Mr. Anderson then returned to the lectern and told the Chairman that the mayor of Cammack Village was present and would like to offer comment on this matter. Acting Chairman Willis then instructed the audience that he is still had numerous cards before him of persons wishing to speak on the matter. He reminded these persons that they should address the issue specifically and not repeat information that had previously been offered. At this point, Mr. Anderson indicated that the persons who have addressed the Commission had addressed the concerns that they have desired to, although he could not speak for everyone. 10 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059-A After a brief discussion between Mr. Anderson and Acting Chairman Willis, it was determined that there were approximately three additional persons wishing to address this matter. The first of these to approach the lectern offering his comments was Mr. Robert Eubanks. He identified himself as the mayor of Cammack Village and a practicing attorney. He offered extensive commentary on the effect of the projected 1,600 dump trucks on the streets between Cammack Village and the lots, and the destructive effect of their passage. He then offered some commentary on his perception of the history of this case and his surprise of learning that this proposal was before the Commission. He continued his commentary by offering that the Cammack Village area is a community of narrow streets without sidewalks and certainly some congestion in certain areas. Mayor Eubanks of Cammack Village indicated that children in the area play in the creek and he fears this will be affected by this project. The next person to approach the lectern to offer his commentary was Mr. Jim Conner. Mr. Conner, a resident of the Sunset Drive area, identified himself as a professional planner, real estate investor and Little Rock businessman. He then continued by offering his commentary on this proposal. His assessment covered the potential impact both of this project and the potential for additional development in the area. He expressed some concern that Mr. Walker would submit an application of this nature with this neighborhood opposed. He said that nobody knows what the legal relationships are involved in this proposal, he sees a clear conflict of interest. Mr. Conner requested that Mr. Walker withdraw the application, and if such does not occur he stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission deny this matter. He stated that he would like to see the Ensminger°s replat their properties into a single one house lot. Mr. Conner concluded his remarks. The Chairman then recognized the next speaker being Ruth Bell, of the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Bell offered a statement that she had often observed applications hartily contested during hearing before the Commission cause additional development in an area. A follow-up question to that statement was how would the Commission react to such future applications if this item is approved. Acting Chairman Willis pointed out that the only answer he could offer is that each application would be handled on its on merits. That concluded the speakers from the audience. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Putnam for a comment. Commissioner Putnam offered his historical relationship to the Graham Hall property, which is now occupied by the Ensminger family and that he purchased the land for that structure. He 11 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A offered various comments on his relationship to developments in the immediate area overlooking the river. He concluded his remarks by stating that he would like to see the area left alone and let this development in this neighborhood remain much as it is. Acting Chairman Willis then recognized Commissioner Daniel for his thoughts. There was an interruption by a person in the audience identifying herself as having turned in a card and desiring to speak on the matter. The Chairman again reminded the audience that he had asked for the show of hands for speakers but would allow additional speakers if so desired and announce their intention at this point. This person identified herself as being an owner in the area and she stated to the Chairman that she hated to see the item proceed to a conclusion without having all of the information from both sides of the matter. By request from the Chairman, this speaker identified herself as being Yvonne Law. Commissioner Daniel responded to a question by the Chairman by stating that he would hold his question to a later point in the hearing. Ms. Law then approached the lectern and proceeded to offer her comments on the subject. She offered general commentary on the current state of access and the matter in which the private street would be gated and controled for access to the two lots. These access points would not be observed from Sunset Drive. Ms. Law stated that this road at one point did go down to the river. Her family had a 40 year history in this property adjacent to Pine Valley Road and had a part in its termination at its current end. Ms. Law stated that current termination of Pine Valley Road was not an accident. Ms. Law produced a graphic illustrating the area and she also offered a brief history of the agreement that was being offered for attachment to the land. She offered general information as to who owned what property at various areas around Sunset Drive and Pine Valley Road. Ms. Law then introduced to the Commission a copy of a plat having preliminary plat approval status from the Planning Commission authorizing Mr. Ensminger to subdivide into 7 lots. She pointed out particularly that the plat proposes the reopening of the closed abandoned portion of Pine Valley Road. Her perception of this plat was, that, it indicated that Ensminger at least at that point had no concern for the development of adjacent properties surrounding their residence. She then moved her comments to the agreement discussed with Mr. Walker to control access and development of the two lots that are projected out of this Tract M. She indicated that any attempt to use the easement for any other purpose or access to these two lots would cause the easement to revert to her family. She concluded her remarks by stating that the Ensmingers who owned property on one side of Pine valley Road have a right to 12 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059-A use that road and take access. But apparently, the Ensmingers feel that persons owing property on the other side of Pine Valley Road do not have the right to develop their property. Chairman Willis then moved the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Daniel then made the statement that he had asked permission to offer previously. This had to do with a visit to the site and his perceptions of the existing roadway terrain and adjacent properties. He expanded his comment to include emergency vehicles and problems with access and turning radius onto this narrow roadway. Chairman Willis then posed a question to Joe White. He asked Mr. White to address the issue of the number of trucks coming to the site and possible time frame or duration of their accessing this property, and as to what routes that they might possibly utilize. Mr. White responded that any material coming to the site would have to come down Pine Valley Road. Mr. White indicated that they had looked at the design of these slopes and they would possibly use such devices as gabions. The utilization of these devices would significantly reduce the number of trucks. Chairman Willis then asked Mr. White to respond to the question of dust. Mr. White pointed out that these haulers would have to be permitted and the roadway would have to be maintained and wet down to reduce dirt and the City would control those types of things. The Chairman then queried the Commission members as to further comments. At this point, Commissioner Mizan asked Mr. White if he was not going to use the design that was offered by the opposition. Mr. White stated that it was similar and the grades would be similar; however, the construction types would not necessarily be the same. The horizontal configuration would be much the same but their slopes would be different. He stated they would probably use a fill and gabions that would reduce the slope. Commissioner Adcock then asked Mr. White if he still would have to cut down a significant number of trees. Mr. White pointed out that the design that he hoped to utilize would not remove as many trees as was offered in the illustration. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Walker's attorney who returned to the lectern. He offered a lengthy comment concluding that the law in this matter is clear. If you meet minimum standards, it must be approved. He went on to offer a reading from the Richardson case that had previously been discussed by various persons in this hearing. He stated that since Mr. Walker was willing to accept the higher standards to meet the Ordinance and avoid a waiver, the law requires the Commission to approve this application. 13 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO • 5-1059-A He stated that many of the issues he identified as "picky little issues" had been addressed by the court in the Richardson case. He pointed to the fact that it must all be resolved before the final plat is concluded. He stated that nothing will take place here unless a final plat is approved. Before the final plat is approved, Mr. Walker will have to fully comply with the requirements. He stated that many of the arguments presented had been a "smoke screen" and that Mrs. Law has capably covered the issue of access and future development of this area. Anyone desiring to develop further in this area would have to come before the Planning Commission. He stated that although there had been some objection to the provision of a private street, he felt that the construction of a private street at this point would enure to the benefit of everyone in the area by excluding people who had no business in the area. He went on to say, that, although it had been suggested by one of the speakers that no changes had occurred in this neighborhood for 50 years, Mrs. Law had pointed out, the Ensmingers had filed a plat to had six additional lots to their property. He closed his remarks by requesting that Mr. Walker not be discriminated against simply because he is on the Commission and he has done everything to eliminate discretion. Chairman Willis then closed the discussion on this item. After a brief commentary, Willis suggested to the applicant that the applicant should perhaps pursue the idea of curb and gutter versus a lower street standards. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for a vote instructing them that they were voting on the plat identified Item 111A" on the agenda consisting of Lots M1 and M2. The vote on the application produced a count of 5 ayes, 4 nays and 2 absent. The Chairman then questioned the Deputy City Attorney as to the status of the application. It was agreed that the application was automatically deferred per bylaw requirement. In this instance, the application did not receive 6 votes affirmative or negative. Commissioner Chachere posed a question at this point of whether or not this was the second deferral of this item with this circumstance and what happens at this point. Does it go to the Board? Mr. Giles, of the City Attorney's Staff, advised the Commission that this was a first deferral because the previous application had been withdrawn because it was a different property. This is a resubmittal on a separate site. The Chairman then asked the staff to produce a date for deferral of this item. Bobby Sims, of the Planning Staff, identified August 8, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. being the rehearing date. OF! September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1059 - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Planning Commission was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Brad Walker, the applicant, stating that the applicant and abutting neighbors were currently discussing resolution of this subdivision matter. The letter requested that the application be deferred to September 19, 1995. The Commission determined that appropriate to include this item in the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent and 1 abstention (Brad Walker). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a letter, dated August 24, 1995, reporting that he no longer retained an interest in the subject property, nor authorization to proceed with the application, and asking that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. The request to withdraw the application was included on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal, and the withdrawal was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Walker), and 1 open position. 15 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-6000 NAME: Jimerson Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Bikeway - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Along the south bank of the Arkansas River from Murray Park to River Mountain Road OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Little Rock PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the phased development of a city park along the south bank of the Arkansas River from Murray Park to River Mountain Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The proposed park is to be located along the south bank of the Arkansas River, beginning at the western end of Murray Park and extending westward to the Corps of Engineers' boat launch ramp at the foot of River Mountain Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed park is to be located along the south bank of the river, in an area between the railroad tracks and the water's edge. Entrance to the park will be through either of two existing parks, River Mountain Park or Murray Park. The proposed park is located along the bottom of a heavily wooded bluff which runs parallel to the river. The are several residential properties on the upper side of the bluff, but they are well separated from the proposed park. The park will be compatible with the neighborhood and should have no impact on any adjacent properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: There is existing parking located at both the east and west ends of the proposed park, at River Mountain Park and Murray Park. Additional parking will be installed in the west end of the park, along that portion of the road which is accessible to vehicular traffic. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6000 4. Screening and Buffers: No additional screening or buffers are required. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Base flood elevation = 261.0 NGFD. This project requires SFNA development permit, conditioned upon approval of the Corps of Engineer's. A certification of no increase in BFE must be submitted. Development east of Jimerson Creek will encroach in regulatory floodway. 6. Utilitv Comments: Little Rock Wastewater reports an existing force main is located in an exclusive easement in the area of the proposed bridge. The contractor will be responsible for protection of the force main during construction and any damage the construction of the bridge may cause to the force main. 7. Staff Analysis: The City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department requests a conditional use permit to allow for the phased development of a city park along the south bank of the Arkansas River from Murray Park on the east to River Mountain Road on the west. The first phase of the project involves the eastern 2/3 of the proposed park. In this initial phase a cul-de-sac will be constructed on the existing road which is located between the railroad tracks and the river. This cul-de-sac will prevent traffic which enters the park from River Mountain from driving through the length of the Park. The remaining portion of the road, extending east of the cul-de-sac, will be converted into a bikeway and pedestrian path. A bike/pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Jimerson Creek and the bikeway will continue eastward to Murray Park. Throughout this portion of the park several reststops, consisting of benches/shelters, trash receptacles, bike racks and interpretive signs, will be constructed. A fishing pier and a pavilion will be constructed near the cul-de-sac. The second phase of the project involves the western 1/3 of the proposed park. This portion of the park will be vehicle accessible, using the existing road which enters the park from River Mountain Road. New parking lots, a fishing pier, picnic sites and a pavilion will be constructed in this portion of the park. F September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6000 This park will create an additional two miles of recreation opportunities for Little Rock citizens and staff is supportive of the request. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the City Engineer and Wastewater Utility Company Comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 8, 1995) David Bryant was present representing the Parks and Recreation Department. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer and Wastewater Utility Comments outlined above. Mr. Bryant responded that the City was working closely with the Corps of Engineers on the project and that proper care would be taken to avoid damage to the force main. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) David Bryant was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that it was necessary to defer the item to allow time to resolve some outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Planning Commission was in receipt of a request from the Parks Department requesting that this application be deferred for further discussion with an abutting property owner. The Commission determined it appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, and 4 absent. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6000 NOTE: The Staff in meetings with Parks Department, City Manager and City Attorney's Office have determined that we will recommend that the Commission should take action to approve this conditional use permit application, subject to the Staff and City Attorney later resolving access, ownership and street status. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) The Planning Commission received a report from Staff indicating that this item did not require further deferral in order to resolve the issues attendant to the outparcel bysecting the continuity of this park. Staff reported that it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the issue could be resolved after action by the Planning Commission if the motion of the Commission include a condition for that follow-up. After a brief discussion, the Chairman placed the item on the floor for a vote as filed subject to later resolution by the Staff and City Attorney. A vote on this motion produced 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 4 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z -4563-A NAME: COMMUNITY BAKERY -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of S. Main St. and W. 12th. St., at 1202 S. Main St. DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: Joseph C. Fox Terry Burruss COMMUNITY BAKERY, INC. TERRY BURRUSS, ARCHITECT 1202 S. Mair_ St. 1621 S. Battery St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202 375-8656 376-3676 AREA: 0.49 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Restaurant, Offices, and Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT: 1 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The Community Bakery is one element of a larger PCD plan, the "Main Street Project", which extended from 12th. St. to 14th. St., and from the alley between Center and Louisiana Streets on the west to Scott St. on the east. The PCD was approved by the Planning Commission on November 26, 1985, then was established by the Board of Directors on December 17, 1985, in Ordinance No. 15,016. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the approved site plan for the Community Bakery development to modify the arrangement of the parking lots and the alignment of the alley. The approved site plan provided for an offset in the alley to the west of its original/existing location, with parking behind/to the west of the Community Bakery building, between the building and the alley alignment, and head -in parking to the west of and off the alley. The current proposal retains the original/existing alignment of the alley, without the offset; reduces the number of parking September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4563-A spaces in the parking lot provided between the rear of the Community Bakery building and the alley; and increases the number of spaces in the parking lot to the west of the alley. The applicant proposes to provide 13 parking spaces on the lot immediately behind the Community Bakery facility, in lieu of the 17 shown on the approved site plan. On the parking lot to the west of the ally, the applicant proposes to provide 12 "head -in" spaces off the alley, plus 10 diagonal spaces off a driveway into the lot. This is in lieu of 14 spaces shown on the approved site plan for the lot to the west of the re -aligned alley. The approved site plan, then, provided for a total of 31 parking spaces; the revised plan provides for 35 spaces, but without re- aligning the alley and the off -set in its alignment. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval is requested for an amended site plan for the Community Bakery PCD development. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The development of the Community Bakery in its location at W. 12th. St. and S. Main St. was begun in 1991. The parking, as planned at that time, was never developed. The alley was supposed to have been moved west with an offset in its alignment at the south boundary of the Community Bakery property line, and head -in parking was supposed to have been provided off the re -aligned alley. The parking lot behind the Community Bakery facility was supposed to have included the land gained from the relocation of the alley. The alley has not been re -aligned, and traffic continues to use the alley as originally platted. The unpaved lot to the west of the alley is used for Community Bakery customer and staff parking, and the arrangement of the parking is much like it is proposed to be in its proposed layout. The existing zoning of the site is PCD. HR and GB zoning districts lie across Main St. to the east; I-630 lies to the north; a PRD, an apartment development, lies to the west; and the Main St. PCD lies to the south of the site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) The parking lot west of the alley needs to be re- designed to incorporate all spaces within the lot; the head -in spaces off the alley should be eliminated. 0a September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4563-A 2) All parking spaces should be designed to be used by all vehicles. No "compact car only" spaces should be provided. 3) Sidewalks and ramps are to be improved west of the alley. 4) The alley apron is to be constructed to conform to City standards. Little Rock Municipal Water Works had no comment. Little Rock Wastewater Utility noted that a sewer main is located in the alley. Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that they will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the proposed western buffer falls below the 5 feet required by the Zoning Buffer Ordinance and the 4 foot minimum required by the Landscape Ordinance. The interior landscaping is short of the Landscape Ordinance requirement of 337 square feet by 186 square feet. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Traffic Engineering objects to the proposed head -in perpendicular parking off the alley, and wants the parking lot design changed to provide a center driveway with parking provided off this center driveway. Traffic Engineering does not want vehicles backing into the alley. There is no objection to leaving the alley in its current alignment. The plan, as submitted, is deficient in meeting the Zoning Buffer Ordinance and the Landscape Ordinance requirements. E. ANALYSIS: The amended site plan for the development of the Community Bakery parking lots has unresolved issues which must be addressed before staff can support the design. K� September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4563-A F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the item be deferred until the applicant, his design professional, and City staff can agree on the parking lot layout. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 20, 1995) The applicant, Mr. Joe Fox, and Mr. Terry Burruss, the project architect, were present. Staff outlined the request and reviewed with Misters Fox and Burruss the comments contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, of the Public Works Staff, and Bill Henry, the Traffic Engineer, discussed the recommendation regarding the design of the parking lot west of the alley; that a central drive be utilized, with parking provided on both sides of the driveway, and the head -in parking off the alley be eliminated. Mr. Fox and Mr. Burruss responded that there was a concern that such an arrangement would reduce the number of parking spaces; that the perpendicular parking provides more spaces than diagonal parking would provide in a re- design of the lot. Mr. Fox maintained that the gravel parking lot which is in use at this time has the perpendicular parking off the alley, and that there has been no traffic problem with this arrangement. He pointed out that the approved site plan, with the alley off -set to the west, has perpendicular parking backing into the re -aligned alley. He was also concerned that moving the parking off the alley increased the walking distance of customers to his establishment. Misters Fox and Burruss, however, indicated that they would meet with the Public Works staff and review the options. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Planning Commission being in receipt of a communication from the applicant requesting deferral the Commission acted on the request by placing the PUD application on the agenda for September 19, 1995 and on the Consent Agenda for deferral. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved; a revised site plan has been submitted, and both Public Works and the Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist have approved the plan. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4563-A revised plan, and the Subdivision Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Staff reported that all concerns of Public Works concerning the parking lot layout and the issues regarding landscaping have been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the amended PCD. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 5 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1074 NAME: JOHNSON RANCH VILLAGE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe white EUGENE M. PHEIFER, III WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 400 E. 13th. St. 401 S. Victory St. North Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 36.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 103 FT. NEW STREET: 4290 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that, for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided. 2) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision. 3} Approval of ,a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. 4) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for off-site detention. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a single-family development to include 103 single-family lots along approximately 4,290 linear feet of new streets, plus the retention of the Johnson home site at the northwest corner of the tract. The subdivision is to be developed on a 36.4 acre tract, which includes the 3.5 acre tract for the home site. The minimum and average lot size is to be 70 feet by 120 feet, with front building setback lines at 25 feet. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1074 Lots backing up to Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd., with frontages on the interior street, are to have a "no vehicle access" easement platted along their rear property lines; no vehicular access is to be permitted from the subdivision to either Cantrell Rd. or Johnson Ranch Rd. The interior streets are to be public streets; however, no sidewalks are proposed along these streets. Additional right-of-way is to be dedicated along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site, and a sidewalk along this right-of-way is to be constructed. A six foot tall privacy fence is proposed to be constructed along the perimeter of the development, along the north, south, and east lines of the tract. The site is outside the Little Rock City Limits, but annexation to the City is anticipated, with water supply and wastewater service to be tied to City of Little Rock utilities. The subdivision is to be developed in three phases; 30 lots along the south boundary of the tract as Phase I; 38 lots along the east side of the tract as Phase II; and, 35 lots along the west side as Phase III. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of waivers from specific Ordinance requirements are requested: 1) a waiver of the requirement that for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided; 2) a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision; 3) a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd.; and, 4) a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for detention. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently the Johnson Ranch home site with accompanying pasture land. A seven -acre stock pond is centered in the pasture. The topography slopes gently to the east and northeast. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, as well as is all abutting land to the east, south, and southwest. Immediately to the west is a strip of land which is zoned C- 3 for the north three-fourths of the west boundary and 0-2 at the southwest corner of the tract. Across Cantrell Rd. to the north is the access road to The Ranch development, with C-2 zoning on the land east of the Ranch Blvd.; 0-2 on the land west of the Ranch Blvd. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1074 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The plat needs street names, boundary line information, curve data, monument information, and data for all drainage courses entering and leaving the tract. A grading and ADPC&E permit will be required. Corps of Engineers approval is needed in order to fill the pond. Align the entrance of the subdivision with Ranch Blvd. across Cantrell Rd.; the name should be Ranch Blvd. The loop street name should be on the plat and must be submitted for approval. The small culs-de-sac are to have outside radii of 45 feet minimum; pavement width of 25 feet minimum; and the entrance and exist radii at the street interface shall be 35 feet minimum. Provision for maintenance of all islands within the right-of-way must be made in the Bill of Assurance, with the neighborhood association or developer being responsible for maintenance of the islands. Dedicate right-of-way for and improve Johnson Ranch Rd. along its boundary of the tract. The entire width of the culvert across the road is to be provided. A 6 foot wide sidewalk is required along the Hwy. 10 frontage. A sidewalk must be provided along the Johnson Ranch Rd. frontage and along internal streets. The 36" pipe from Chenal 14B, the 24" from Glean C. in Chenal 14, and the planned discharge from Chenonceau Commercial subdivision are draining to the rear corner of this property. Provide a drainage easement and underground piping for these discharges. Evaluate the effects on the downstream drainage systems. 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. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9) Show any planned drainage ditches on the preliminary plat. Show water courses entering the site and the planned exit points for drainage. Submit drainage and street plans for review. A stormwater detention analysis is required. Show planned areas and easements for detention structures. Obtain AHTD approval for any work in the Hwy. 10 right- of-way. ight- of-way. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 Water Utilities comments that water main extensions and fire hydrants will be required. In addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply to a portion of this development. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 10 foot easement centered on the property line between lots 4 and 5, and one to highway 10 at the northwest corner of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Pulaski County notes that, if the area is not to be annexed into the City, the County will need street and drainage design plans, and will need to make inspections of the work during construction. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed record book and page number or instrument number for the ownership shall be furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the following be noted: 1) the direction of flow for all watercourses leaving the tract shall be indicated; 2) a storm drainage analysis, showing the drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the site, shall be supplied,; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporat- ing proposed easements and typical ditch sections shall be provided; 4) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all subdivision abutting the proposed subdivision shall be provided; 5) the bearings of the distances on all boundary lines, with ties to all corners of record, and all curve data, shall be shown; 6) the physical description for all monuments, with size and type of material, shall be shown; and, 7) municipal boundaries shall be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 Sec. 31-231.f states that corner lots in residential subdivisions shall have a minimum width of 75 feet. Lot 15, Block 2 is 70 feet wide. Lot 15 must be made wider. Sec. 31-201 states that "whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way." Johnson Ranch Rd., along the eastern boundary of the tract, must, then, have right-of-way dedicated and half Master Street Plan improve- ments made. The developer requests a waiver of the street and sidewalk improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., since the subdivision will take no access to this road. Dedication of the required right-of-way, however, absent a request for a waiver of this requirement, shall be dedicated. Sec. 31-209 requires sidewalks along at least one side of all standard residential streets. Sidewalks are, then, required along all interior streets; however, the developer is seeking a waiver of this requirement. There are double -frontage lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. Sec. 31-232.d permits these where the lots back up to arterials, but not when they back up to standard residential streets. The double -frontage lots backing up to Cantrell Rd., then, are permitted; those backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. are not. A waiver of this prohibition for the Johnson Ranch Rd. lots is requested by the developer, with the explanation that no vehicular access is to be taken to Johnson Ranch Rd. A "no vehicle access,' easement is to be platted along the rear of all lots backing up to both Johnson Ranch Rd. and to Cantrell Rd. Public works notes that required. The developer requirement, noting that fee. E. ANALYSIS• on-site stormwater detention is is seeking a waiver of this he proposes to pay an "in -lieu" Except for the requested waivers and some minor deficiencies, the proposed preliminary plat meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Public works recommends denial of the waivers dealing with half -street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., including the requested waiver of providing the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and the waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision. Public Works recommends that provisions of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance not be waived. The double -frontage lots along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site are permitted, so long as the "no vehicle access" easement along Cantrell is provided. The developer included this provision in his application. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1074 The double -frontage lots along Johnson Ranch Rd. will require a wavier, which the developer requests, noting that a "no vehicle access" easement will be provided along this boundary. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the requested waivers being granted by the Board of Directors, or subject to the applicant amending his plat to conform to the Ordinance provisions, and subject to the Public Works and Utility comments. Staff recommends denial of the requested waivers for half - street improvements and the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and for sidewalks within the subdivision. Staff recommends denial of the waiver from the Stormwater Detention regulations and recommends denial of the payment of the "in -lieu" fee as a substitute for providing on-site stormwater detention. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots for those lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd., with the condition that the proposed "no vehicle access" easement be platted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the developer, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the layout of the proposed subdivision and the proposed waivers, and reviewed with the Committee members and the applicant the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White indicated that the needed information and revisions would be provided. He indicated that his staff would consult with the Public Works staff regarding the Public Works comments. Mr. White reported that the fence along the perimeter of the subdivision would be brick or brick and wood, and that provision for drainage onto and from the site would be made. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, Inc., were present. Staff presented the request, and reported that the applicant had amended his request to delete two of the requested waivers: the 11 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision, and the waiver from the stormwater detention regulations; that two of the waiver requests were being retained: the waiver from the regulation which prohibits double -frontage lots, and the wavier from the regulation which requires boundary street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd. Mr. Joe white outlined the scope of the proposal and reiterated the requested waivers regarding double -frontage lots and street improvements on Johnson Ranch Rd. He indicated, however, that the drainage structure under John Ranch Rd. would be improved, if that is necessary, even if the waiver of street improvements is granted. He reported that a brick and wood fence would be erected at the perimeter of the subdivision abutting existing residential areas and along Cantrell Rd. He said that a property owners' association would be established to maintain the common areas, including medians and islands within the public right-of- way. He explained that the proposed development would not be taking access to Johnson Ranch Rd.; therefore, a waiver from the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to the street was being requested. He added that the home sites along Johnson Ranch Rd. are 5 -acre sites, and that it would not be appropriate to change the "country lane" character of the street. Mr. Louis Gladfelter, identifying himself as living directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the proposed subdivision, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the present residents of the area enjoy a country atmosphere, with their homes being on 5 - acre lots, and a high quality of life. He contrasted the existing low density, country style development with the "super high-density" development of the proposed subdivision, and complained that the neighbors had never imagined that such a dense development, which was so out of character with the neighborhood, would be placed on the property. He expressed concern that the subdivision would decrease the property values of the large lot owners. He said that the value of the 5 -acre tracts, prior to the subdivision's development, would have been approximately $150,000; after the development, it would be less. He said that Ms. Opal Bennett, who owns an undeveloped 5 -acre tract abutting the proposed subdivision on the south, would not be able to sell her tract for nearly as much after the development of the subdivision as she could have six months before the development. He said that stormwater run-off from Chenal Valley is already causing problems, and that the proposed subdivision would compound these problems. He requested that a waiver to permit the homes to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd. not be granted, and said that the neighbors in the area had developed a revised suggested subdivision layout. Ms. Opal Bennett, identifying herself as owning the tract directly south of, and abutting, the proposed subdivision, spoke rA September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 in opposition to the request. She expressed concern that the subdivision's development would devalue her 5 -acre tract. Mr. George Baker, identifying himself as a Johnson Ranch Rd. resident, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that it is not that the neighbors object to development of the subject tract, but it is the nature of the development which is proposed to which they object. He said that the density of the existing developments in the area are no where nearly as dense at the developer is proposing for the subject property. He said that the homes along Johnson Ranch Rd. are not overly large homes, but are simply on large lots. He asked that development of the subject tract take into account the character of the existing development in the area, and not change the "country lane" atmosphere which exists. Dr. Tom Hoffmann, identifying himself as the Johnson Ranch Association president, spoke in opposition to the request "in its present form". He said that he lives directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the subdivision which is being planned, at the southeast corner of Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. He indicated that the neighborhood is so opposed to the proposal that a number of the residents were in attendance at the hearing, and asked these persons to stand. (A number of persons in the audience stood.) He said that the residents feel that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing development. He objected to the double -frontage lots which would back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., saying that back yard activities, such as working on automobiles, hanging out laundry, or children playing, and back yard structures, such as dog pens, would not be what the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would want to drive past as they enter or leave their neighborhood. He said that the proposal to construct a wood and brick privacy fence along Johnson Ranch Rd. to conceal the back yard activities would not be a "beautiful thing" to drive past every day. He complained that the houses which are proposed to be built in the subdivision would be smaller and cheaper than any other homes being built in the area. He said that the Neighborhood Association desires to keep the "country lane atmosphere" of their neighborhoods that the residents do not oppose development of the subject tract, but oppose the density, the proximity of smaller lots and homes to their neighborhood, and the fact that rear yards will back up to their neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood had developed a couple of alternate subdivision plans, which he wanted to present for consideration. He maintained that the alternate plans would retain the economic viability of the developer's project, and, at the same time, take into account the expectations of the neighborhood for retention of its country lane setting. He then presented two possible subdivision layouts to the Commission, one of which proposed large acreage lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd., with the inward -facing lots to the subdivision being smaller; and, for the second, proposed a "green September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 space" buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd.. The first proposal would decrease the number of lots by only a few lots, but, he said, the developer would be able to charge more for the larger lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd. The second proposal would not affect the number of lots. He asked, then, that the proposal, as submitted, be denied, and that the requested variances be denied. Commissioner Putnam explained that, if the size of the proposed lots meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the zoning which is in place for the property, the Planning Commission cannot force a developer to plat larger lots, simply to be in keeping with other development in the area. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles confirmed Commissioner Putnam's statement regarding the Commission's inability to enforce provisions which exceed the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Tom Deluca, identifying himself as president of the Westbury Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the request. He explained that his neighborhood is also a development of Gene Pheifer's, and that Mr. Pheifer has cooperated with the neighborhood in improvements and project which would benefit the subdivision. He said that the Neighborhood Association had voted to support Mr. Pheifer's development of the subject property. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in support of the request. She said that the League supported the proposal because the development is in conformance with the Highway 10 Plan, and because the League supports diversity in housing in neighborhoods. She said that neighborhoods in older parts of town, which have remained dynamic, have been diverse; that they have housing stock which include starter homes, duplexes, apartments, and mansions. She said that the diverse mix of residential areas is healthy. Mr. Gene Pheifer responded to the opposition to his proposed development, saying that the Bill of Assurance of the Johnson Ranch property, which included the 5 -acre tracts along Johnson Ranch Rd., permitted development of the tracts fronting on Highway 10 for all non-commercial development. He said that, consequently, the subject property could have been developed in a way which would have been less conducive to the retention of the residential character of the area, and that the purchasers of the 5 -acre tracts do not have a right of expect more protection than that which was afforded by their Bill of Assurance. They did not, he maintained, have a right to expect the subject tract to be developed in large 5 -acre tracts, since this was never anticipated. He said that the Bill of Assurance for the Johnson Ranch property, under which the 5 -acre tracts were developed, required a minimum of 2,500 square foot homes; his proposed subdivision is to have minimum 2,000 square foot homes. This, he 9 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1074 said, is not that much of a departure from the standards of the homes in the area. He said that the homes on the large lots are on septic tanks, thus requiring the larger lots. His lots, on the other hand, would be on public sewer; that, as a consequence, the larger lots are not required. He said that more density is not necessarily bad, and that cities are encouraging more dense developments to protect the ecology and to prohibit urban sprawl. He said that the homes he proposed to build in the subject subdivision would be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and would cost $160,000 to $180,000, and that he would not characterize the people who would be living in these homes as the types who would work on their cars or hang their laundry in their back yards. He said that the proposed subdivision design presented by Dr. Hoffmann had some merits, and that he and his engineer would review the layout. Mr. White stated that the developer and he would amend the proposal to include provision of a buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd., with a privacy fence to be located between the buffer and the internal lots. This, he said, would eliminate the need for the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots, and, he said, he hopped the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would support the remaining request for the waiver of street improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Commissioner Adcock asked if there could be buffering of the south property line from Ms. Bennett's property. Mr. White pointed out that Ms. Bennett has a vacant 5 -acre lot, and that, when the lot is developed, any desired buffering could be accomplished within the 5 acres. To take a 40 or 50 foot buffer from the subject subdivision would take out five lots, and would be very costly. Mr. Pheifer said that Ms. Bennett had owned the tract for 18 years; that she had known for that time period that she was abutting land that could be developed for all "non-commercial,, uses; that the development of the abutting tract would not be large home sites; and, that during that time period, she could have planted pine trees to create whatever buffer she desired. Mr. white said that, with the development of the subdivision, the stormwater drainage will be directed mostly towards Highway 10, and will alleviate some of the problem of drainage across Johnson Ranch Rd. to the east. Mr. Dennis Merrit, indicating that he lived at #4 Johnson Ranch Rd., said that stormwater drainage in the area was a problem; that he was having problems with run-off from Chenal valley, and he could imagine that Dr. Hoffmann would have problems, as well. He said that he had been assured that the drainage problems would be addressed, but, he said, it has not been. 10 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1074 David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, responded to the complaint about drainage, saying that the Johnson Ranch subdivision was developed using an open ditch means of dealing with stormwater drainage, and that drain culverts are probably under sized. He explained that the drainage from Chenal Valley would be retained, once the retention structures were completed. He explained that, while a subdivision is being developed, and prior to the stormwater detention system being completed, there can be a problem, but that, once the system is complete, the release of stormwater onto abutting property should not be any greater than that released prior to development. He said that Mr. Merrit°s complaint regarding run-off from Chenal Valley would be addressed when the stormwater dentition system in Chenal Valley is complete. Chairman Walker, summarizing the proposal, indicated that the requested action was approval of an amended preliminary plat, with a 50 foot buffer from the edge of Johnson Ranch Rd. along the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision, including a privacy fence along the west side of the buffer. The amended preliminary plat was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position, subject to approval by the Board of Directors of the waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Staff explained that, with the buffer separating the lots which were shown to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., that no waiver of the restriction on double -frontage lots would be needed. Staff explained that, with the creation of a tract for the buffer, and if the developer does not final plat the tract, there will be no requirement to construct Johnson Ranch Rd. Mr. White said that, to avoid any confusion or opportunity for a claim of deception, he would prefer to pursue the street waiver. Chairman Walker called for the question on the waiver of improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd., indicating that the residents along Johnson Ranch Rd. support the waiver; that they do not want Johnson Ranch Rd. changed from its "country lane,, character. The Commission recommended approval of the waiver with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Putnam), and 1 open position. 11 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1077 NAME: LEAWOOD PLACE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: West of the present end of Mountain Dr., Janwood Dr., Flintwood Dr., and Evergreen Dr., and south of the present end of Leatrice Dr., approximately 3/4 mile west of Mississippi Ave. in the Leawood area. DEVELOPER• JACK LARRISON 11518 Fairview Rd. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-5160 ENGINEER: John R. Pownall THOMAS ENGINEERING 3810 Lookout Rd. North Little Rock, AR 72216 753-4463 AREA: 14 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 1700 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a waiver of the prohibition of double - frontage lots. 2) Approval of a variance from the requirement for lots to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street and approval of a waiver of the requirement that turn -around devices be provided in the subdivision for Lots 1, 2, and 3. 3) Approval of a variance from the provision that the depth of lots not exceed three times their width. 4) Approval of a waiver from the requirements of the Hillside Regulations which establishes maximum number of lots and minimum lot sizes, and requires submission of a Hillside analysis. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Proposed is a 16 lot subdivision on a 14 acre tract of "left- over" land lying between two existing subdivisions and Grassy Flat Creek. The tract lies beyond the present dead-end of five streets in abutting subdivisions. The applicant plans to develop September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1077 three of the lots, at the northeast corner of the tract, as an initial phase, with access to these lots being provided from the dead-end of Mountain Dr. and of Leatrice Dr. The lot lines are proposed to split the rights-of-way of these streets, with driveways to the lots being provided from the dead-end streets; no turn -around devices are proposed. The remaining 13 lots are to be developed as phase two and will take access from extensions of Janwood and Flintwood Drs. These streets are proposed to have turn -around devices constructed at their terminations. The Grassy Flat Creek floodway lying within the boundary of the subdivision is to be retained and designated as a recreation area, with access to this area being from the dead-end of Evergreen Dr. and from an access easement from the west end of Flintwood Dr. Lots 1 and 2 are each to have 25 feet of frontage on Mountain Dr.; Lots 2 and 3 are each to have 25 feet of frontage on Leatrice Dr. Lots 1, 2, and 3 are also to have frontage on the extension of Janwood Dr. Likewise, Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 are to have frontages on both Janwood Dr. and the extension of Flintwood Dr. The applicant proposes to develop the lots along the extension of Janwood and Flintwood Drs. in keeping with the width and depth of lots in the developed portion of the neighborhood, and proposes a 15 foot front building setback line as is in keeping with the front setback line along the developed section of Janwood and Flintwood Drs. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of waivers from specific Ordinance requirements are requested: 1) a waiver of the prohibition of double - frontage lots in residential subdivisions; 2) a variance from the provision which requires lots to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street and a companion issue, a waiver of the requirement that turn -around devices be provided in the subdivision for Lots 1, 2, and 3; 3) a variance from the requirement that the depth of lots not exceed three times their width; and, 4) a waiver from the requirements of the Hillside Regulations which establishes maximum number of lots and minimum lot sizes, and requires submission of a Hillside analysis. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped, heavily wooded, and extremely hilly. The 100 -year floodway line elevation along Grassy Flat Creek at the southern boundary of the tract is at an elevation of approximately 360. The elevation at the northeast corner of the tact, at the high point, is 547, a 187 foot elevation differential. There is an average slope 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1077 across the tract of 28% grade. Leatrice Dr. dead -ends into the tract from the north; Mountain Dr., Janwood Dr., Flintwood Dr. and Evergreen Dr. dead-end into the tract from the east. The site is zoned R-2, as is the abutting land to the north and east, and across Grassy Flat Creek to the southwest. At the northwest corner of the tract is an R-5 zoned area, and a point contact with an OS zoned strip. To the south is a point contact with a small triangular shaped R-5 zoned tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Show boundary line information and curve data. Provide right-of-way for and construct approved turn- around devices at the end of each street in or entering the subdivision. Each turn -around device shall accommodate SU vehicles (garbage trucks). The hammer- head turn -around design at the extension of Janwood Dr. and Flintwood Dr. are not acceptable. A turn -around device must be provided within the plat boundary for Mountain Dr., Leatrice Dr., and Evergreen Dr. Sidewalks are required along all streets. A grading permit and ADPC&E permit is required. A SFHA Development permit is required prior to construction. Minimum floor elevations are required on lots in the floodplain. Access and maintenance easements or dedication of the land to the City are required for land in the floodway. 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 be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planing Commission approval. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9) Show any planned drainage ditches on the preliminary plat. Show water courses entering the site and the planned exit points for drainage. Plan must provide for the 100 -year water to cross the platted lots in an open unrestricted easement. Drainage from the ends of Mountain and Leatrice Drs. must be addressed in the drainage plan. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1077 Public Works comments (Continued): Provide a stormwater detention analysis and storage easements. Show a "no vehicular access" easement along the rear lot lines of the double frontage lots. Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $150/acre applies to this tract. These charges are in addition to the normal connection charges. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements along the east, north, and west boundaries of the tract. The Fire Department approved the submittal, but cautioned that the grades may exceed the maximum grades for access to the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the average and minimum sizes of proposed lots be reported, and the existing and proposed covenants and restrictions be furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished: 1) sidewalks be shown on the plat and provided, unless a waiver is requested; 2) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections be shown; 3) the names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the subdivision be shown; 4) the physical description of all monuments is to be shown, indicating size and type of material; and, 5) the location of proposed PAGIS monuments is to be noted. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificates of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be furnished. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1077 Division 8 (Sects. 31-367 thru 31-376), the Hillside Regulations, requires that the total number of lots permitted be determined; then, that at least 800 of the lots conform to the minimum required lot size, and the average size of all lots shall conform to the minimum lot requirement. Sec. 31-369 says that staff and the Subdivision Committee shall review and approve the slope analysis; then, that the subdivider shall prepare the preliminary plat to conform to the lot sizes established. Sec. 31-232.d prohibits double -frontage lots, but provides that, in hillside areas, as defined in the Hillside Regulations, such lots may be used to facilitate development. Sec. 31-232 states that the minimum lot dimensions shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the particular district in which the lot lies. Sec. 36-254 requires a minimum lot width of 60'. The three lots in Phase One, Lots 1, 2, and 3, are shown to have one-half of the 50 foot right-of-way frontage only, or 25 feet of frontage. Sec. 31-232.b states that no residential lot shall be more than three times as deep as it is wide. The area noted as "Recreation Area" is in the Grassy Flat floodway. This floodway area needs to be dedicated to the City or designated as a tract. If it is retained by the developer, the Bill of Assurance needs to provide for the permanent maintenance of this tract. E. ANALYSIS• There is critical information which has not been furnished to staff, most notably, the Hillside analysis. Without this information, staff cannot determine if the proposed number of lots and minimum and average size of lots conforms to the Hillside Regulations. The applicant indicates that he wishes to continue the same size lots into the new subdivision as those in the existing development to the east. There may be justification for some variance from the regulations, but staff cannot make a recommendation for approval of such a variance without the analysis. Public Works notes that a turn -around device, in which the automated garbage trucks can operate, must be provided at the termination of each street. The three lots making up Phase One, Lots 1, 2, and 3, omit the required turn -around device, and the applicant is seeking a waiver of the requirement for these lots, seeking, instead, to permit the frontage of the lots to be one-half of the width of the 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1077 "dead-end" right-of-way, or 25 feet. Public Works comments, that from a traffic perspective, two side-by-side driveways entering the lots at the end of Mountain and Leatrice Drs. will create a safety concern, since cars entering or leaving the private drives will have to drive the wrong way on the wrong side of the public street in order to cross over to one or the other of the driveways. This is an unacceptable situation, and driving the wrong way on the street will not be permitted. Public Works notes, also, that the automated garbage trucks cannot operate in the situation posed, and, from this perspective, as well, the design is unacceptable. The regulations permit the use of double -frontage lots to facilitate development in hillside conditions. A "no vehicular access" easement needs to be platted along the rear of the affected lots. Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are excessively deep, and exceed the maximum depth permitted by Sec. 31-232.b which restricts the depth of lots to three times their width. The applicant, however, requests a variance from this restriction, saying that the rear part of these lots is inaccessible for any other use but to be included as a part of the abutting lots. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the public hearing on the preliminary plat be deferred until the application information (e.g., the Hillside analysis) is complete and staff has had an opportunity to review the information. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots in residential subdivisions. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance from the requirement for lots to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street, and recommends denial of the requested waiver of the requirement that turn -around devices be provided in the subdivision for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from the provision that the depth of lots not exceed three times their width. Staff recommends denial of the requested waiver from the requirements of the Hillside Regulations which establishes maximum number of lots and minimum lot sizes, and requires submission of a Hillside analysis. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1077 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Jack Larrison, the developer, and Mr. John Pownall, with Thomas Engineering, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the proposed subdivision layout and variance requests, and reviewed with the Committee members and the applicant and his engineer the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff representative, David Scherer, reviewed with Mr. Larrison and Mr. Pownall the Public Works comments. There was discussion about the comment that possibly Mountain Dr. and Leatrice Dr. should be connected, with Misters Larrison and Pownall pointing out that extending the streets to connect would not only provide a traffic pattern that would not be desired by the abutting property owners, but would take all the buildable areas of the three proposed lots. Public Works was insistent that some type of turn -around provision be made for the termination on Mountain Dr. and Leatrice Dr., saying that garbage collection vehicles would need to be able to service the lots and would need to be able to turn around, and pointing out that, without a turn -around device, vehicles entering and leaving the two driveways off the ends of the streets would be crossing driving paths and creating a traffic hazard. The Planning staff discussed the need for providing the hillside analysis and for further discussion on the variances needed and to be requested by the developer. Mr. Pownall responded that he would provided the needed information and would address the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John Pownall, with Thomas Engineering, was present. Staff presented an overview of the application, explaining that, since the staff report had been prepared, the applicant had met with both the Planning and Public Works staff and had remedied the deficiencies and concerns noted in the agenda "write-up", and that staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and of the following variances: 1) a variance for Lot 3 from the requirement that lots in the R-2 zoning district have a minimum frontage on a public street of 60 feet, and permit Lot 3 to have 50 feet of frontage on Leatrice Dr.; 2) a variance from the requirement that lots have a maximum depth of not more than three times their width for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; 3) a waiver from the prohibition that lots not have frontage on more than one public street, and permit all the lots to have double -frontages on public streets; and, 4) a variance from the Hillside Regulation which requires, for the subject property, 23,000 7 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1077 square foot minimum lots, and permit lots of less than 23,000 square feet. Mr. Pownall presented the revised preliminary plat, and outlined the proposal. David Scherer, of the Public Works staff, reported that, except for a concern that the off -set culs-de-sac at the end of Janwood and Flintwood Drives would not permit the "SU" vehicles to maneuver within the cul-de-sac, that Public Works supported the revised plan. He explained that the developer may need to revise the culs-de-sac to either change their alignment or widen the approach to each. He also suggested that the cul-de-sac at the end of Flintwood Dr. be relocated to the east, so that it is pulled away from the east boundary of Lot 8, and that the arraignment of lots surrounding this cul-de-sac be changed to a more convention cul-de-sac arrangement. Staff explained that Mr. Pownall had shown that the Hillside Regulations permit the number of lots proposed, but that, in lieu of unusable land being included in individual lot in order to meet the 23,000 square foot lot size, this unbuildable land is being left as an undivided recreation area which is to be maintained by a property owners' association or the developer. Staff explained that the variance on the lot sizes could be supported, since the lot density is not being increased beyond the Hillside Regulations maximum requirements. A motion as made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat and to recommend to the Board of Directors approval of the cited variances. The motion was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 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. 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. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 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. PROPOSAWREQUEST: 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 PCD. 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. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 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: 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 30" 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 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 35% 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. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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. 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. 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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. 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. 0 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 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. 7 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 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. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION, ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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 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 PCD 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. 9 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5756-B 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. RIV September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6020 NAME: RAMSER -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the east side of Taylor Loop Rd., approximately 0.1 mile south of Cantrell Rd., at 16714 Taylor Loop Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Forrest C. Marlar, Jr. GEORGE M. RAMSER, MA, LPC MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. 2120 Beckenham Cove 5318 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72212 North Little Rock, AR 72216 227-9055 753-19087 AREA: 0.434 ACRE NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Professional Office PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, a licensed professional counselor, proposes to remodel the existing house located on the property, and use the structure for his individual counseling practice. No other use, nor convertibility to any other use but his own, is requested. No other improvements or additions to the property are proposed. He states that the hours of operation are, typically, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. He sees one patient at a time, and anticipates that the number of vehicles using the parking area would be one per hour. The applicant acknowledges that dedicating the required right-of- way for Taylor Loop Rd. will put the structure he plans to remodel and occupy partially within the right-of-way. The applicant wishes to enter into a contractual agreement with the City to limit the appraised value of the structure to that of a residence, in lieu of being appraised as an office use, when and if the City improves Taylor Loop Rd. and needs to buy the structure. The applicant states that he may not occupy the structure for his practice on a long-term basis, and, that quite possibly, the use will have reverted to residential use by the time Taylor Loop Rd. is improved. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6020 A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval is requested for establishment of a Planned Development- Office. evelopment- Office. Approval is requested for a contractual arrangement which will permit the applicant to use the building (although the right-of-way dedication will cause the building to partially lie within the right-of-way), yet limit the value of the building to its value as a residential structure in lieu of a value as an office building, should the City need to acquire the structure as part of a street improvement project for Taylor Loop Rd. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The existing development on the lot consists of a 1034 square foot, single -story, frame and stucco, "slab-on-gradell residence, with a front porch across the front of the house. The residential structure is located as close as 6.4 feet behind the existing Taylor Loop Rd. right-of-way line. There is an asphalt driveway which lies along the north side of the home. The site is zoned R-2, as is all surrounding land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Dedicate right-of-way for Taylor Loop Rd.; 45° from centerline is required. Dedication of right-of-way will take the front portion of the building into the street right-of-way. A grading permit and SFHA Development Permit are required prior to any construction, including remodeling. Traffic Engineering recommends denial of the request due to insufficient information provided. Stormwater detention and other provisions of the Ordinance will apply if the project involves building construction. Water Works comments that water service in available to the front tract, but not to the rear tract. E September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6020 Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required in order to provide service to this site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not respond. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that: A 6' high opaque screen is required to screen all business activity from the residential property to the north and south. This screen may either be wooden fence with its face directed outward, or be dense evergreen plantings. One tree (Min. 2" caliper at planting) and one shrub (Min. 18" in height at planting) will be required along the north and south site perimeters. Credit can be given for existing trees. The parking lot will be required to be brought into compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Normally, if an existing building either lies in the right- of-way or, by dedication of additional right-of-way, comes to encroach into the right-of-way, Public Works can grant a franchise for the building to remain in the right-of-way until there is a need for the structure to be removed. This could be the solution in this case --that the dedication of the required right-of-way for Taylor Loop Rd. which will cause a portion of the building (probably the entire front porch) to be within the right -of -way --except for the fact that, once the property use is changed to an office use, the appraised value of the property increases, and, if the City is required to buy the building as part of the street improvement project, will have to pay an inflated price due to this zoning change. The City does not want to be in this position. Public Works does not want to grant a franchise for the building, then have to pay for an office building in lieu of a residence at some time in the future. Consequently, Public Works and the City Attorney's office recommend that the planned development be denied. V September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont ) FILE NO.: Z-6020 E. ANALYSIS• The applicant wants to remodel a small home for use in his counseling practice. He wants to retain as much of the residential character of the property as possible. He does not anticipate a long-term (10 or 20 year) occupancy of the building. The problem created by dedicating right-of-way and, at the same time, rezoning the property for a "higher" use should be able to be resolved through a contractual arrangement with the City which will limit the City's liability when and if the building is purchased as part of the widening of Taylor Loop Rd. If such an arrangement cannot be approved, then the City Attorney's office recommends denial of the Planned Development. The application is for the benefit exclusively of this particular applicant and his use; no convertibility is proposed. The use of the property will revert to residential use if the applicant ceases to occupy the property. The Planning Staff reports that the site is located in the Chenal District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Transition Zone". The proposed use is consistent with the Plan, and the Planned Development is the proper means of pursuing the rezoning. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -O, subject to the City Attorney's office being able to approve a contractual arrangement to limit the City's liability in the event that the structure, once it is within the right-of-way after the required dedication, is required to be purchased as part of a Taylor Loop Rd. widening project, and if Public Works grants a franchise for the occupancy of the building of its place on public right-of-way. If these arrangements cannot be made, then staff recommends denial of the PD -O. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mrs. Dafney Ramser, representing the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the requested Planned Development to the Committee members, and the Committee members reviewed the discussion outline and discussed the issues raised with Mrs. Ramser. Mrs. Ramser said that she would relate the discussion items to her husband, and that Mr. Ramser would be in contact with staff within a few days. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. 0 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. George Ramser, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the proposal, and explained that, with the rezoning and the required right-of-way dedication, at least the front porch of the house would be located within the Taylor Loop Rd. right-of-way. Staff asked Deputy City Attorney to address the right-of-way dedication issue. Mr. Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, explained that either the applicant can ask for a waiver of the right-of-way dedication, or could dedicate the right-of-way and seek a franchise for use of the right-of-way until such time that the City widens Taylor Loop Rd., needs the right-of-way, and revokes the franchise. At that time, he said, the building would be required to be removed from the right-of-way. He explained that, if the City has the dedication deed in hand, even if the rezoning takes place and the value of the property is increased, the City will not have to purchase the portion of the building which encroaches into the right-of-way; the City simply orders the building removed. Mr. George Ramser, the applicant, addressed the issues. He said that he would be willing to dedicate the right-of-way and seek a franchise for use of that portion of the building which will lie within the right-of-way. He said that his use of the building would probably be in the 5 to 7 years time frame, and that he would probably vacate the building prior to the City being in a position to make improvements to the portion of Taylor Loop Rd. which would affect his property. He said that, should he discontinue the use of the building for his counseling business, he would use it as a residential rental property. He explained that he wants to retain the residential character of the building and property. Mr. Giles asked Mr. Ramser if he understood that, if the City has need of the right-of-way, a notice would be sent to him and he would have to make arrangements to vacate, or have a tenant vacate, the structure. Mr. Ramser acknowledged this. Mr. John Woodall, identifying himself as living next door to the subject property, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that his father had built the subject home in 147; that it is so old and in need of so many repairs, that it is vacant and un- livable at this time. He said that the subject house is "right in the middle of a lot of houses", and that the neighbors would prefer the house to remain as a residence. Commissioner Ball asked if, indeed, the property is in a residential area, if an office use is appropriate. 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-6020 Staff explained that the adopted Land Use Plan shows the area to be Transition Zone; that office is appropriate, if a planned development is the means of achieving the rezoning. Staff explained that the proposed counseling use is a very low intensity use, with one patient per hour in and out, and that there is no land use issue involved. Ms. Pat Trumpeheller, identifying herself as residing behind Mr. Woodall, spoke in opposition to the request, saying that she wanted to retain the use of the area as a residential neighborhood. Ms. Mary Woodall, identifying herself as a neighbor, spoke in opposition to the request. She asked why, if the use is going to be of such low intensity, a parking lot is needed. She also contended that the neighbors are maintaining the property. Chairperson Walker restated the issue and placed the item before the Commission for approval. The item was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. C September 19, 1995 ITEM NO. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4933-D NAME: ONE SOURCE HOME CENTER -- AMENDED LONG --FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Eugene M. Pfeifer c/o Olan J. Asbury Joe White THE HATHAWAY GROUP WHITEWDATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 663--5440 374-1666 AREA: 8.85 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 4 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: Continuation of the hardware store and Lumber yard uses previously approved, plus all permitted and conditional uses listed in the C-3 zoning distract regulations. PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGRQUND : The site was zoned PCD on December 26, 1950, by Ordinance No. 15,594. This action established the "Mechanics Lumber Company Long -Form PCD (Z -4933-B). The Planning Commission recommended approval of the action at its November 20, 1990 public hearing. The approved PCD permitted the development of a 17,500 square foot hardware store, a 32,320 square foot lumber yard facility, and the creation of two out -parcels which require amendment to the PCD in order to develop. (No uses or building areas were established.) Development plans for the out --parcel at the corner of Chenal Parkway and Kani.s Rd., to the west to the hardware store -lumber yard facility, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 29, 1994, with Board of Directors approval of an amended PCD district titled "'Worthen Bank Branch, Chenal Parkway --Amended Short -Form PGD" (Z --4933--C), following on December 20, 1994, established by Ordinance No. 16,811. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION I..TFM..NQ..:....... 5..........t.COx�t.. FILE NO.:Z-4933-D In the action taken by the Planning Commission on November 29, 1994, the Commission recommended denial of a requested waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Kanis Rd. boundary of the out -parcel. In its action on December 20, 1994, the Board of Directors approved the waiver in ordinance No. 16,$12. STATEMENT of PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the original PCD to: 1) eliminate the eastern out -parcel, and combine it with the. existing Lot 1; and, 2) add 15,000 square feet of retail lease space to the east end of the existing building, including an addition to the parking area, new access points from the east, and construction of a portion of the future eastern boundary minor arterial street. The applicant specifically requests approval for the continued use of the property for the hardware store and lumber yard facility, plus requests approval of all C-3 uses as listed in the permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 zoning district regulations. The applicant proposes to work with Public works in negotiating an agreement for sharing the cost of construction for the new north -south minor arterial street which, is to lie along the east boundary of the tract; however, waivers of some requirements may be requested by the applicant when Public Works requirements are established. A. PROPOSAL /RFQUEST : Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of an amended PCD is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the current location of the Builders Home Center and Supply facility, plus the vacant out -parcel which lies to the east of this development. There are some trees on the undeveloped portion of the site, but, for the most part, the site is cleared. The site is zoned PCD. Property immediately to the east is zoned R-2, but is the location of the Kinco contractors offices and materials yard. Across Kanis Rd. to the south and west is all R-2 zoned property. To the north, across Chenal Parkway, is an R-2 zoned tract to the northeast which is the location of the Highland Valley United Methodist Church and, directly to the north, an undeveloped 0-3 tract. A C-2 tract lies to the northeast across Chenal Parkway. 2 September 19■ 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM ...MO..:....5 (Cont.) „ „ , „ „ _FILL NO.: Z -4933-D C. EN INEERINGMTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: Right-of-way dedication for a right -turn lane on Chenal Parkway is required. Construct 36 feet of pavement for the east minor arterial to a grade that will be consistent with the preliminary plan for its inter -section with Chenal Parkway. Contribute in -lieu for the right turn lane and one-half of the minor arterial costs_ (The minor arterial on the east side will include right turn lanes at the north and south ends.) A credit towards the in - lieu will be allowed for the 35 foot pavement and grading work. Contribute $20,000 toward the cost of the intersection construction. This represents one-half the Chenal Commercial subdivision commitment, or one-fourth of the estimated costs. Improve the Kanis Rd. to collector standards, including providing a sidewalk, along the Kanis Rd. boundary of the site. The north driveway on the future minor arterial is located too close to the planned intersection, and must be relocated or eliminated. Provide the required stormwater detention analysis. Additional parking may be required. Water works comments that, in addition to normal connection charges, an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies. Additional on-site fire protection may be required. An existing water line easement across this property is not shown, and must be added to the plat. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not respond. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department noted that additional on-site fire hydrants may be needed. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM 5 (ContA FILE Z-4 3 -D The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A portion of the eastern buffer adjacent to the future minor arterial street drops below the full requirement of 21 feet, but meets the ordinance requirements when averaged out. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNXCALIDESIGN: Sec. 36-502 sets the requirements for commercial (retail) and industrial (storage and lumber yard) uses. For general retail sales uses, one space is required for each 300 square feet of gross floor area up to 10,000 square feet; then, for floor areas of 10,401 to 20,400 square feet, 95% of this number is required; then, for floor areas of 20,001 to 30,000 square feet, 90% is required; then, for areas of 30,001 to 40,000 square feet, 85% is required. The existing general retail floor area is 17,500 square feet; the addition will be 15,000 square feet, or, 32,500 square feet total. This amount of general retail space will require, according to the ordinance, 124 spaces. The material storage and lumber storage totals 34,.080, and requires 22 spaces. The total required, then, should be 145 parking spaces; 135 is proposed to be provided. Sec. 31-201 requires that, "whenever a proposed (development) abuts a partially ... constructed...street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way. Kanis Rd., along the south boundary of the tract, does not meet Master Street Plan standards, and half street improvements and a sidewalk are required. Improvements to Kanis Rd., however, were not a requirement of the developer when the original PCD was approved; they are, however, a requirement for construction of the bank facility on the west out -parcel.. (The sidewalk requirement was waived by the Hoard of Directors, contrary to the Planning Commission recommendation, for the out - parcel.) E. ANALYSIS. The Planning staff reports that the development is in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The area is designated on the adopted Land Use Plan for commercial uses. The requested C-3 uses, then, are in conformance with the Plan. The 22 parking spaces allotted to the material storage and lumber storage uses are based, presumably, on a separate "free-standing,, storage use not associated with a principal. use. There may be some room for compromise on this number; thus, the 136 spaces may be appropriate. The applicant, however, needs to be the one who addresses this matter and 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 5 (Cont-,) FILE __ _. Z- --D requests approval of the number of parking spaces he proposes to provide. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PCIS. Staff recommends that all Public works improvements requirements be required to be provided as part of the amended PCD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Gene Pfeifer, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, were present. Staff outlined to the Committee members the proposed development. The Committee reviewed the discussion outline with Mr. Pfeifer and Mr. White. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, presented the Public Works comments, and explained to Mar. Pfeifer the Public Works rationale for the comments and their implications for his development. Mr. Pfeifer indicated that he would have to consider these comments. Mr. White said that the additional information would be provided, and that required changes would be discussed with Public works. The Committee forwarded the item to the full. Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. Olan Asbury, representing the developer, was present. Staff outlined the request involved in the amended PCD. Mr. Asbury recounted the history of the approval of the original PCD in 1990, and of the agreements concerning the rights -of --way and street improvements which were associated with that approval. He stated the elements of the amendment to the PCD which the applicant was seeking. He asked for a concession to permit the northern -most eastern drive onto the future north -south minor arterial to remain as shown on the plan. He said that, since the proposed building addition is an extension of the existing building, and the parking lot is being extended eastward, the location of the drive approach from the street is established by the existing construction. He said that, until the north -south minor arterial is constructed, to delete this drive approach would cause a real hardship for customer access to the property, since the only other viable access point is off Chenal. Parkway. He said that, when the north -south minor arterial is constructed at some time in the future, the northern -most access point could become a right -turn out only. The southern --most east access point., he said, is proposed to be increased to the maximum 5 September 19, 1995 HDIVI I ITEM NO.; 5_(Cont.)FILE N Z-4 3-D allowable width, and, upon construction of the north -south minor arterial, would become the main entry to the commercial center. Mr. Asbury, speaking of the requested waivers, indicated that the developer would not commit to making improvements along the Kanis Rd. frontage of the site, saying that, when the PCD was approved in 1990, the improvements issues regarding Kanis Rd. were addressed at that time; that the current PGD issue does not abut Kanis Rd.; and, that it is inappropriate to raise these requirements after they had been established and settled previously. Mr. Asbury reiterated the agreements with the City regarding construction of the north -south minor arterial, saying that it is the developer's commitment to paying one-half the cost of these improvements, with the stipulation that the developer pay one- half the cost of the north -south minor arterial as it was aligned in 1990, not as it the alignment has been changed. He explained that recently the alignment had been changed to curve to the east to intersect Kanis Rd., instead of intersecting Kanis Rd. at a nearly right-angle, and the developer would not be interested in paying one-half the cost of this expanded project. He said that the developer would agree to constructing the full width of the north one-half of the project, according to the original. alignment. Mar. Asbury stated that the developer cannot commit to paying for improvements on Chenal Parkway or for paying for re --construction of Chenal Parkway or the north -south minor arterial to accommodate the grade changes which will be necessary for the extension of the north -south minor arterial across Chenal Parkway. He said that there is already an agreement, from 1990, which defines the developers responsibilities for boundary street improvements costs. He said that the developer is unwilling to dedicate additional right-of-way along Chenal Parkway for a right turn lane, saying that it is his understanding that there is adequate right-of-way width in which the right turn lane can be built. Mr. Asbury requested that the Commission approve the amendment to the PCD to permit the building expansion of the commercial center; that the allowable uses of the center be C-3 uses: that the northern -most east drive approach be permitted on a temporary basis until such time that the north -south minor arterial is constructed, at which time this drive would become a right -turn only exit; and, that the southern -most drive onto the north -south minor arterial be increased in width to the maximum allowable width for an approach. The committed to working with Public works to define the waivers and variances which will be sought at the Board of Directors level. 0 September 19, 1995 gUHDIVISION ITEM NO,: (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z- -D Commissioner Daniel recalled that there is a Chenal Taskforce which is studying Chenal Parkway issues, and that this taskforce will be making recommendations concerning access issues for Chenal Parkway. Chairperson walker re -stated the issues of the amended PCD, as described by Mr. Asbury. He explained that no position was being taken by the Commission on any waivers and that the report and conclusions of the Chenal Taskforce should be taken into account as requests for waivers are developed and as the developer and Public works come to agreements on the waivers to be pursued on this application. Chairperson walker asked for approval of the amended PCD, and the issue was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent■ 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 7 September 19, 1995 ITEM LSO • 5 FILE Z-5908 ASM TEN -MILE HOUSE -- LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATTQN: On the south side of Stagecoach Rd., approximately 0.4 mile west of the David O. Dodd Rd. intersection, at 5915 Stagecoach Rd. NANCY NEWELL 5915 Stagecoach Little Rock, AR 455-0500 AR 5 ACRES ARCHITECT: WILLIAM WIEDOWER Rd. 1.212 W. 2nd. St. 72204 Little Rock, AR 72241 375--8252 NUMBER OF_LOT S: 1 FT. NEW _STREET: 4 ZONING: R-2 PROPOgED UaES:Museum tours, historical dinner theater, retail sales, office, and residence PLANNING_ DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REOURSTED: 1) Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide additional right-of-way along the Stagecoach Rd. frontage of the site. 2) Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide an all --weather surface at interior drives and parking areas. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to preserve for the public, as a museum for education, entertainment, and aesthetic purposes, the Ten -- Mile House, one of the oldest structures in Arkansas, and one which has great historic significance. The hone was built in the mid -1830'x, and is believed to be the oldest brick house in the state under private ownership. It has also been known as the McHenry House and the Stagecoach House. (The house is 10 miles from downtown Little Rock; the original owner was the McHenry's; the home was used as a rest stop on the stagecoach route to Texas.) During the Civil war, the home was used as the headquarters for the Union Army during their occupation of Little Rock, and. in 1853, David 0. Dodd was captured by Federal Marshals on the premises, and was held overnight in the house September 19, 1995 ITEM N(Cont,)FILE NO.• Z - before being taken for trial and execution. The present site was originally part of a 1,400 acre farmstead, which has now been reduced to encompass 52 acres and which the applicant purchased in 1583. Since that time, the applicant has undertaken the restoration of the main house and its associated buildings. She has done extensive research into the history, legends, and lore surrounding the Ten -Mile house, its owners, and the general lifestyles of Arkansas' territorial era and early statehood. The restoration of the property has been guided by some of the State's leading preservationists, and is being restored as authentically as possible; all woodwork is being painted, grained and/or marbleized according to the tradition of the period. Appropriate fencing for the period is being constructed. white picket fencing surrounding the house and hand --split cedar snake fencing of the premises. An authentic 1830's farmstead is being created, complete with heritage breeds of small livestock, a poultry and waterfowl aviary, and a herb garden. The kitchen is in a completely detached building, and is being restored. The applicant is meshing the old with the new, and, although the kitchen has the luxury of modern conveniences, they are concealed in hand-crafted period cabinets and cupboards. The original bake oven was found behind a wall in the kitchen, and it has been restored. The smokehouse and well house are also being restored. An old log house that was located in Nashville, Arkansas, was moved to the site, meticulously reassembled, and stands on the east side of the main house complex. In order to finance her major restoration effort, the applicant, since purchasing the house in 1983, has hosted groups to tour the recreated farmstead and the home which is furnished with antiques, and has sold antiques from the premises. For the last couple of years, the applicant has added the amenity for the groups to enjoy dinners of excellent cuisine amid the aura of early statehood, while being entertained by actors from the Arkansas Territorial Restoration who present historical dramatizations portraying local legends and lore which bring the spirit of the 1800's alive. Initially, the dinners were catered; last year, the applicant installed a commercial kitchen, with State Health Department approval, and now prepares the dinners on site. The applicant requests rezoning of 5 acres of the 52 acre farmstead as a planned development. The main house, the second floor of which is the applicant's residence, is a museum, and will be used to host open houses, tours, and dinner theater events. The detached kitchen building contains the commercial kitchen, offices, and storage. The well house is used for storage. The smokehouse and the old log house, which was moved onto the property, have been converted to shops for the sale of antiques, small gifts, and period foodstuffs. The barn houses the animals. There are two driveways off Stagecoach Rd., one to the house; the other for guest parking beside the barn. 2 September 1.9, 1995 SUBDIVISTQN ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) ^^, - FILE NO.: Z-5908 Retaining a non-commercial., farmstead aura to the drives and parking areas is important, and the applicant seeks approval of a waiver of the requirement to pave these areas. The applicant is also concerned that dedication of additional right-of-way for Stagecoach Rd., Highway 5, will detrimentally affect the house and grounds. It will put the right--of--way line extremely close to the front door of the house, and will require the removal of front fencing and the entry gate, if not initially with dedication, then ultimately when highway improvements are made. The applicant requests a waiver of the requirement to dedicate the additional right -of --way. A. PROPOSAL/RE4UEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval is requested for a planned development for the Ten -Mile House. Planning Commission approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide all-weather driving surfaces for the drives and parking areas on site is requested. Board of Directors approval of a waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for Highway 5 is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The planned development site is a 5 -acre tract out of a 52 acre farmstead. The site contains the main house, detached kitchen, smokehouse, well house, barn, log house, and various accessory buildings. There are landscaped areas and gardens, and there are animal enclosures and pasture land. The site is currently zoned R -Z, as is all abutting land. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public works comments that: The site appears to lie in the 100 -year floodplain. Topographic and base flood information should be provided so that the SFHA Development Permit requirements can be established. State Highway 5 is a principal arterial. Dedicate right--of-way to 55` from the centerline. Remove all items (fences, gates, etc.) which lie within the newly dedicated right-of-way, these items to remain in time that the roadway is 3 or request a franchise for the right--of-way until such widened and the land needed. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITM NO 5 [Cont.] FILE NO. Z-5908 Traffic Engineering recommends denial of the application. The guest drive at the west end of the site is dangerous due to a "blinds curve from the west. Construct a concrete apron and pave the driveways and parking areas. With any future construction, other Ordinance requirements will be imposed. Water Works has no comments. Wastewater comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required to provide sewer service to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not respond. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that, based on this site remaining residential in character, no additional landscaping is suggested at this time. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Sec. 35-452 states that the purpose, intent, and application of the PRD is: 1) "To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for predominantly residential. areas...." 2) "To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and activities within a single development... can be planned on a total basis." 3) "To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion,..." 47 To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural beauty and other attributes." Permitted uses include: all residential uses; parks, recreation facilities, and open space; public and institutional uses; and incidental commercial and office uses. sec. 31-241 states that, "whenever a proposed (development) abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way." Public Works, in this case, has commented that the right--of-way dedication is required; any road improvement would be part of a State Highway Department project. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISIO ITEM No.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO,.- _Z -5M The Ordinances require that all interior drives and parking areas be paved; that all-weather driving surfaces be provided, and that curb -and --gutter, or other approved means, be used to separate the driving/parking areas from landscaped areas. E. AN The predominant aura of the planned development is residential in nature. The home is not only the applicant's residence, but the home and grounds are a recreation of a farmstead in a historical setting. The sale of antiques, gifts, period foodstuffs, etc. are in keeping with the character of the predominant residential use, and are accessory in nature. The office use, as well, is an incidental use. Because the applicant is seeking to restore and preserve the 1834's farmstead heritage; because the home and grounds are a "living" museum; and, because the restoration project has become an inclusive project involving both private and public institutions and individuals, the provisions of the PRD which includes "public and institutional" uses seems to apply. Staff feels, then., that the planned development can legitimately be classified as a PRD. The Planning staff comments that the site is in the 55th. Street Test Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Single -Family" uses. The site is an important State Historic site, and staff understands that it will become a public site in the future. The current proposal will not change the appearance of the site or significantly change the character of the site. Further, the use appears to be similar in impact on the neighborhood to a bed and breakfast. staff believes this to be a temporary use which will not change the nature of the site. According to Public Works, the right--of--way must be dedicated as part of the re -zoning process. If it is not dedicated at this time, then, when the State begins its widening project, the City will, be required to purchase the needed right-of-way. If the right -of --way is shifted north, so that the Ten --Mile House property is left in tact, then, again, the City will, be responsible for the needed purchase. The need to preserve the historic setting versus the need to acquire the right-of-way for the future Highway 5 project should to be weighed. The policy-making bodies must make this call. in other situations where rural settings were involved, and the wish to retain the rural residential aura was desirable, Public works and Neighborhoods and Planning supported a 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISIOK compromise of the requirement to pave the drives and parking areas: the required concrete apron and paved drive on the public right-of-way was retained; the drive pavement was extended sufficient distance onto the site so that gravel and mud would not be tracked onto the public street; and landscape timbers or edging was installed along the drives and parking areas to both protect the border landscaping and to retain the drive/parking area material. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to either Hoard of Directors approval of the requested waiver of right-of-way and Planing Commission approval of the requested waiver of improvements to the drives and parking areas, or the applicant conforming to the ordinance requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Ms. Amy Dickson, a representative of the applicant was present. Staff outlined the nature and scope of the requested planned development. Staff reviewed with the Committee members and Ms. Dickson the comments contained in the discussion outline. Public Works comments concerning the requirements for dedication of right-of-way and paving of drives and parking areas were discussed. David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, indicated that the survey which had been presented was inadequate; it did not show the distance from the Highway 5 centerline to the existing property line, nor did it show the western --most drive access and the guest parking areas beside the barn. Ms. Dickson indicated that she would discuss the comments with the applicant, and would contact the surveyor to provided the additional information. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Ms. Aimee Dickson, representing the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the requested planned development, and reviewed with the Commission the rationale for designation of the development as a PRD, as indicated in the staff report. Staff reviewed with the Commission the requested waivers for boundary street right--of-way dedication and for on-site driveway and parking lot paving. Staff indicated that the applicant would need to amend her site plan and survey to include the increased area of the site to accommodate the relocated western --most driveway and parking lot, and to show all parking lots and internal. drives. The applicant would, staff said, need to show 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION TEM NO.: & (Cont.) FILE No.: Z_ the drive approaches onto Stagecoach Rd. and the paved area of the drives, as required by Public works. Ms. Dickson reviewed with the Commission the nature of the proposal, outlining the types of activities which are carried on at the site.. She reviewed the historic nature of the property, and recited the types of preservation efforts which are being accomplished. she told of the applicants involvement in the property, and recounted the history of her business use of the property. She explained that the alignment of Highway 5/Stagecoach Rd. needs to be moved northward, and not allowed to encroach onto the Ten -Mile House property. Mr. David Scherer, of the Public works staff, explained that the boundary street provisions of the Master Street Plan require dedication of right-of-way from the existing centerline of Stagecoach Rd., and that if the dedication is not taken with the proposed rezoning, then the City will have to purchase the required right-of-way whenever the State widens the highway. He verified that the State Highway Department had not established an alignment for Highway 5, and there are no current plans for the widening of Highway 5. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles explained that, prior to the State Highway Department establishing an alignment, public hearing are held and environmental impact studies are conducted. At that time, the historic significance of the Ten -Mile House can be.established, and the State can align, the highway accordingly. He recommended that the Commission recognize the historical significance of the Ten -Mile House and recommend to the Hoard that the requested wavier of right-of-way be approved. Chairperson walker placed the item before the Commission for approval, and the PRI], with a recommendation of approval of the waiver of right-of-way, was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 4 abstentions, and 1 open position. 7 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO. 7 FILE NO,: Z -5887 - NAME: _S$87 - NAME: EMBASSY SUITES --- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the south side of Financial Center Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile west of Shackleford Rd. ENGINEER: Joe White JOHN Q. HAMMONS WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 300 Hammons Parkway, Suite 900 401 S. Victory St. Springfield, MO 55846 Little Rock, AR 72201 (417) 864-4300 374--1565 AREA: 6.38 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 586 .ZONING: PD -C & R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: PROPOSED USES: None Hotel & Convention Center; Restaurant On October 18, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a request to establish the Embassy Suites Short --Form PD -C on a 4.07 acre tract of land. By Ordinance. No. 16,842, passed on February 7, 1995, the Board of Directors approved the PD --C, Subject to the developer dedicating additional right-of-way for Financial Center Parkway. Construction of the new west boundary collector street was included in the approved PD. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the previously approved planned development to add a 2.31 acre tract to the site. This additional tact is located at the southeast quadrant of the previously approved site, and will be used for surface parking. The approved PD anticipated providing parking for 298 vehicles in a two-level, below --grade, parking facility which would extend beneath the hotel tower and convention center buildings, plus providing 128 surface -level parking spaces, for a total of 425 spaces. The revised PD proposes to eliminate the below -grade parking facility beneath the hotel tower, and to provide 128 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVIBTUN ITEM 7(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z -587-A spaces below -grade beneath the convention center, plus a total of 301 surface spaces, or a total of 429 parking spaces. The amended PD also reorients the building from its front/north- facing entrance and porte cochere to a west -facing entrance. A. PROPOSALIREOUEST: Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of a an amended PD -C is requested. B. EXISTING CQNDITIONSt The site is undeveloped and wooded and overgrown. The topography slopes fairly evenly from a high point at a knoll just southwest of the northeast corner of the tract the south, southeast, and southwest. The knoll is at an elevation of approximately 494 feet MSL: the southwest corner of the tract is at approximately 445 feet MSL; the southeast corner of the tract is at approximately 428 feet MSL. The site is currently zoned PD and R-2. Across the new collector street to the west is the Pinnacle Point Hospital on a C-3 zoned tract. To the south is a large R-2 tract. To the East is 0-3 zoned land. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITYCCSMM_EU : Public Works comments the revised plan does not appear to conflict with the original site plan as far as the interface with the new 35 foot collector street and Chenal Parkway are concerned. Traffic Engineering has approved the parking lot layout. Water works comments that a front footage fee of $12.00 per foot (E.5518,1989) applies, and that this fee is in addition to normal connection fees. A main extension will be required to tie into an existing 81, main approximately 104 feet east of this property on the south side of Financial Center Parkway. Wastewater comments that a capacity analysis will be required prior to wastewater Utility approval.. If capacity is not available, the developer will be required to upgrade the existing system to handle any extra flow generated. Capacity contribution fees and Farm Bureau Fees will be assessed for this project. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not respond. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. 2 September 19, 1995 SQHDIVISI I Coxa FILE Z- 7 -A Southwestern Sell Telephone Co. did not respond. The Fire Department comments that some minor changes need to be made in the fire hydrant spacing. The pumper hydrant located on the northeast corner in conjunction with where the fire service water line enters the building is O.K. The 500' spacing should begin from that hydrant on around the building with 5001 or less spacing on the other 2 hydrants. There are enough hydrants to meet Code; they simply need to be relocated slightly. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. D. 15SUESILEGAL/TECHN CAb/DESIGN: The previous approval approved the same uses with a total of 426 parking spaces. This was approved with the assurance of the developer that this was sufficient parking. The amended application, though, has supplied the needed parking analysis. This analysis shows that■ to meet the City's parking ordinance requirements, for all the various uses to be going on simultaneously, 601 spaces are required. The analysis shows, however, that, based on the time of day, and when, during the day the various uses will be taking place, the 429 spaces provided with this application will be sufficient. All agreements associated with the originally approved PD have been reaffirmed; e.g., that the additional right-of-way for Financial Center Parkway is being dedicated, and that the full width of the west boundary collector street will be constructed as part of this project. E. ANALY 2 The Planning staff comments that the site is located in the 1-430 Planning District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends "Mixed office Commercial" uses. The use is consistent with the adopted Plan. The developer has furnished a parking analysis which justifies. to their satisfaction the adequacy of the number of parking spaces provided. The Planning Commission may either concur with this conclusion, or may require more for fewer) spaces. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PD -C. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont. l FILE NO.: Z -5$87_-A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE _COMMENT: (AUGUST 31■ 1995) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, was present. Staff explained that an amended planned development was being sought in order to add a 4 acre tract to the previously approved PD in order to accommodate needed surface parking for the hotel and convention center. Staff explained that, initially, the developer had anticipated extending the below -grade parking deck not only under the convention center, but under the hotel area as well, but that this was not going to be possible; that structural requirements of the 9 -story hotel would preclude having workable maneuvering and parking areas under the hotel; consequently, the lost below -grade parking would have to be made up for in surface parking. Mr. white reported that his, as well as the developer's staff, were in consultation with Hill Henry, the Traffic Engineer, and that all concerns of Traffic Engineering would be addressed. Staff reported that, other than Mr. White and the developer getting finished drawings in to staff, there were no major issues to be resolved. The Committee forwarded the planned development to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING CQMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that the developer and communication with Public Works, and resolved. Staff recommended approval item was approved with the vote of 8 4 abstentions, and 1 open position. 4 (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) his engineer had been in that all issues had been of the amended PD, and the ayes, D nays, 2 absent, September 19, 1995 ITEM -NO.; 8� FILE NO.; Z - 6 0 31-A NAME: Portoni - Conditional Use Permit LOCATI[3N: 6701 Shaner Circle OWNERIAPPLICANT: Martha Portoni PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the addition of a wholesale plant nursery and greenhouse business to this 1.5± acre site. The property currently is zoned R-2 however. an AF rezoning application is Item No. 17 on this agenda (Z-6031). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANPAR_D$: 1. Site L ation• The property is located outside of the city limits but within the City's planning and zoning jurisdiction. Shaner Circle extends north of Raines Road which is west of Crystal Talley Road. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The surrounding area is rural in nature. The small subdivision fronting on Shaner Circle consists of an eclectic mixture of single family homes ranging from single - wide mobile homes to double -wide manufactured homes and large brick houses. Each homesite appears to exceed one acre. The subject site currently contains a one story, frame residential structure and will continue to be the applicant's home. The addition of two greenhouse structures for the raising of bedding plants will be the only improvement to accommodate the proposed business. This small nursery business, with no outside storage or display of materials and merchandise appears to be compatible: with the neighborhood. 3. On -Sate Drives and Parkinu: The applicant originally proposed to construct a paved parking lot to accommodate a second phase which involved retail sales from the site. She has since eliminated retail sales from the request and will not build the parking lot. The applicant proposes to use only the existing driveway which currently accesses the site. The applicant will be September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: (Cont.)FILE NO.: K -6031 - making deliveries, thereby eliminating the need for shipping and delivery vehicles. 4. Screening and Buffers: The landscaping and screening requirements were tied to the proposed new parking lot which has been dropped from the plan. No additional screening or landscaping is required for the two proposed greenhouse structures. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Traffic recommends denial due to the impact on the 12 foot, chipseal residential street that provides access. Any expansion beyond the addition of the two greenhouse structures will generate concerns regarding street and drainage improvements. Pave the driveway approximately 50 feet or so from the street to keep gravel from being tracked onto the street. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of a plant nursery business to this site. The property is currently zoned R-2 however, an AF rezoning application is Item No. 17 on this agenda. The conditional use permit is contingent upon the property being rezoned AF. The applicant originally submitted a two --phase plan in which phase I was strictly wholesale and phase II added retail sales and a paved parking lot. Phase II has .since been dropped from the request. The applicant is requesting approval only for a small, wholesale plant nursery utilizing two greenhouse structures which are proposed to be constructed behind the applicant's home. Bedding plants will, be raised in the greenhouses until they are large enough to be sold to retail dealers. No outside display or storage of materials or merchandise is proposed other than a small area for storage of soil and compost materials. The applicant's property contains a large number of trees and shrubs. The proposed greenhouse structures are located well away from all property lines. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6031-A Staff believes the addition of this small nursery business to this site is a reasonable use and is supportive of the request. 8. Staff Recommendat- Staff recommends approval of the application for a wholesale only plant nursery subject to compliance with the City Engineer's Comment to pave the driveway to a point approximately 50 feet from the street. SUBDIVTSIQN COMMITTEE CG NT: (AUGUST 31■ 1995) The applicant, Martha Portoni, was present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer Comments outlined above. Ms. Portoni explained that the proposed business was the propagation of perennials and herbs from seeds and cuttings in the greenhouses until they are large enough for sale in small bedding size containers. She confirmed that she was requesting approval for the wholesale nursery only and that there would be no retail sales from the site. Ms. Portoni stated that the parking lot would not be constructed since it was tied to possible retail sales on the site. A discussion then followed concerning Shaner Circle itself. David Scherer, of the City Engineer's office, stated that any expansion beyond the addition of the two greenhouse structures would generate concerns regarding street and drainage issues. The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION_ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1595) This item and Item No. 17 (Z-6431) were discussed concurrently. The applicant, Martha Portoni, was present. There were two objectors present. Two letters of opposition had been presented to Commission members. Staff presented both item No. 8 (Conditional Use Permit, Z -6031--A) and Item No. 17 (AF rezoning, Z-5031) together with a recommendation of approval in both cases. Martha Portoni addressed the Commission and briefly described the material to be used in the construction of the greenhouses. In response to a question from Chairman Walker, Mrs. Portoni stated that the business would employ herself, her husband and one other person. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISIQ ITEM ND • 8 [Cont..] FILE Mg.: Z-6931- waiter W 1 - Walter Clements, of 6310 Shaner Circle■ addressed the Commission in opposition to the items. He stated that he was concerned about commercial development in the area. During a discussion of deliveries to and from the site, Mrs. Portoni stated that there would be no delivery trucks and that she would be making any deliveries herself. Sandy McCowen. of 6414 Shaner Circle, addressed the Commission in opposition to the items. She stated that the Portonis are bringing in bags of leafs at night• Ms. McCowen also stated that there was an old mobile home on the property, behind the Portonis' house. Mrs. Portoni responded that the business was not much above the level of a hobby. She stated that the business would be quiet and that there would be no more than one vehicle at a time coming and going from the property. Mrs. Portoni stated that she would remove the mobile home from the property. A motion was made to approve the AF rezoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position. Commissioner Chachere asked about access to the site from the rear. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the Commission could restrict access from the rear if it chose to but that staff saw no reason to do so. Mr. Clements and Ms. McCowen asked about possible runoff of water and chemicals from the site. Mr. Carney pointed out that the use was totally enclosed and that there would be no outside storage or display of plants. He noted that the City's stormwater detention ordinance was not applicable in this case. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit subject to removal of the mobile home from the property and compliance with the City Engineer's Comment to pave the driveway to a point approximately 50 feet from the street. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position. 4 September 19, 1995 ITEM N 9 FILE No.-, Z-6034 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT; PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGH STANDARD : 1. Site Location: Professional Educators School - Conditional Use Permit 8405 Stanton Road The Salvation Army The establishment of a private. non --profit, Christian school This property is approximately equidistant between I-30 on the North and Baseline Road on the south. Stanton Road is an unimproved two lane roadway serving mostly residential use. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed use will occupy a building constructed by others prior to annexation. The building was constructed as a four bay commercial building. The adjacent use on all four sides is single family with most being mobile homes. This being the case there should be no adverse affect on living environment. 3. On -Site Drives_ andParkinq: The site has a paved parking lot that should serve the use for good drive through and drop-off as well as employee parking. A gravel drive serves the rear yard but may not be used, if used, it must be paved. 4. Screening gn Buffers: An upgrade in landscaping around the perimeter of this site should be provided where feasible. This landscape enhancement should include trees and shrubs and screening. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wood fence with its face directed outward or dense ever green plantings, is required to screen this site from the adjacent residential properties to the north, south and west. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Convert existing driveways to one-way flow or reduce the number of drives to one. A minimum width of 27 feet at the September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.; 9 (Cox -it, ) -__ FILE NO.: 2-6034 time reconstruction is planned for Stanton Road. The 8 foot gravel drive should be paved. Stanton Road is a Local Street project funded by bond funds. Planned reconstruction will alter drives and improve frontage and sidewalk. Any planned building construction will require a contribution to the In --Lieu fund for this street. Dedicate Row for Stanton Road, 25 feet from centerline. This street is a collector on the Master Street Plan requirements for this road. Recommendation: Stanton Road between Baseline and 1-30 be designated as an urban collector with reduced right-of-way of 50 feet and a pavement width of 27 feet except at each end where the major intersections occur (then the read will transition to collector standard). 6. utility No issues - all available 7 . Staff _Analysis: The subject site is well-suited for conversion to an educational activity. It is served by good access to the arterial street system. There is adequate outdoor area for playground or other activity as well adequate parking for the six employees staffing the facility. The limitation of ninety children seems somewhat high. However, the arrangement of the classrooms has some flexibility and will probably accommodate the number. we would limit these staffing and student numbers as proposed unless the school can acquire more land. The perimeter of the play area adjacent to the rear property line should be screened for sound as much as possible since residences are near this line. Also, some thought should be given to a possible safety issue along the south boundary of the parking lot. There is a potential for a fall or vehicle damage problem due to an abrupt grade change. 8. Staff Re-c-ommendation: Approval of the conditional use permit subject to: 1. Limit the use to that proposed by the school, in number and operation. 2. Conform to landscape and Public Works concerns. 3. Dedicate 25 feet of right-of-way for Stanton Road. (from centerline) 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVI91 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cant.) FILE NO,_;_ Z-6034. 4. Dealing with Traffic Engineer's Comment on controlled in and out drives or go to rine driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19■ 1995) The Staff presented its recommendation which was approval of the application with the modifications noted in the staff write-up. A brief discussion followed during which the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of S ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and I open position. 3 September 19■ 1995 ITEM NO.; 10 FILE Z-4 25-A. NAME: Calvary Apostolic, - ❑.P.C.IConditional Use Permit LOCATI9406 Block Stagecoach Road eastside of street QWNER/APPLICANT: Calvary Apostolic., Q.P.C. for the Terry Trust PROPOSAL: To construct a new church facility with provision for future day care center for 50 children. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is approximately one-quarter mile south of Baseline Road in an area that is involved in floodplainlfloodway. The site is undisturbed with trees and natural growth obscuring the building site. 2. Comnatibility_with Neighborhood: This is an area that has seen little change in recent years. The only change of note is that at Baseline and Stagecoach where there are several new commercial buildings. There are some residential uses across the street, but, these are on large lot rural type development. This church use should be of little effect on environment or traffic. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The site pian presented will work for this use with minor adjustments to meet Landscape and Traffic Engineers requirements. 4, Screening and Buffers: Areas set aside for street and land use buffers meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Any adjacent residential areas to the north, south and east not screened year round by existing vegetation will require additional screening. This additional screening can either be evergreen plantings or a six foot high opaque wood fence with its face directed outward. September 19, 1995 ITEM No.: 10 [Cont.] FILE NO. Z -4325 - The Landscape Ordinance requires six percent or 737 square feet of the interior of the proposed parking lot be landscaped. interior islands must be of at least 144 square feet. Two trees are required within the interior landscaping of the parking lot. Curb and gutter or another approved border is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Enaineer's Cgmmgntg: The site appear to lie in the 100 year floodplain. The floodplain should be shown in order to determine if a SFHA Development Permit is applicable for this work. A grading permit is required prior to any work. Stagecoach is a minor arterial with 50 foot pavement with sidewalk. Dedicate 45 feet of right-of-way from centerline. AHTD permit will be required. The City Engineer will approve a 2 year deferral of 100% In -Lieu amount determined by a professional engineer for street improvements. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Driveway apron should be concrete and be 90 degrees with respect to Stagecoach. A minimum 27 foot driveway is required. 5. Utility Comments: water: A water main is under construction that can serve this property. A pro rata front footage charge of $15 per front foot will apply to connection in addition to the normal connection fee. Sewer: Sewer main required with easements. 7. Staff Analysis: The subject site is well-suited for use as proposed given the large floodplain involvement paralleling Stagecoach Road. The Highway Department plans for widening this road are developing. The plan for a principal arterial road removes any question of traffic circulation or access. Given the size of the tract (3 ac.) there is room for some future growth of church buildings and. activity. Without specific pians included here the church may have to return to the planning commission for future expansion. Staff accepts the day care as a future use with an understanding that specific plans will be required for our approval prior to obtaining any building or site permits. A 10 percent structural expansion limitation is imposed by ordinance absent returning to the Commission. Staff has determined 2 September 19, 1995 S BDIVI IO ITEM NO.10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4325 - that the three acres is a purchase out of a larger site. This requires that a platting of the church site and the balance of the original property be accomplished. This could be handled at staff level after approval of the conditional use permit and direction by the Commission. This plat and the requirement for street improvements must be reviewed by the Board of Directors since the applicant desires a waiver of Stagecoach Road improvements. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval as filed subject to staff comments above. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTI,QN: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) The Staff presented its recommendation which was approval of the conditional use permit as filed. The recommendation carried with it the several items pointed out in the staff write-up. A brief discussion followed during which the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes. 0 nays, a absent and 1 open position. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO. 1.1 FILE NCS.: Z-6-0-26 NPM_: Givens - Conditional ❑se Permit LOCATION: #15 Hickory Hills Circle OWNER/,PPLICANT: John G. and Patricia Givens PROPOSAL: To construct an accessory dwelling in the side yard area to serve as a guest house (accessory dwelling provision in R-2), ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The building site is immediately inside the subdivision along the south side of Hickory Hills Circle. It is a large boundary lot in this plat with significant grade rising above the street. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: There is no issue here since the request is single family accessory activity. The property owners architectural committee have approved the plan. 3, On --Site Drives and Parkin : There is sufficient existing to serve the Ordinance requirement. 4. Screening and Buffers: No issues 5. City Engineer's Comments: No issues 5. utility Comments No issues - available 7. Staff Analysis: This request is simple. There are no issues that have been presented by reviewing persons or agencies. The only issue unresolved is a written request from the owner for separate utility metering of this residence. September 19, 1995 SUBDIVTSION ITEM NO.; _ 11 (Cont.) FILE ,NO. Z-6425 8. Btaff Recommgndation: Approval as filed. PLAIMING COMMISSION ACTIO : (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 ) The Staff presented its recommendation of approval of the conditional use permit as filed. A brief discussion followed during which the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 4 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO_._: 7-6032 NAME: Seventh Day Adventist - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 8708 Rodney Parham Road n ER APPLI ANT: The Seventh Day Adventist Church PROPOOAL: To Locate two classroom buildings adjacent to the existing school. Each 25 feet by 55 feet with a maximum student occupancy of 44 total. ORDINANCE DEb9IGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The land area for the proposed classroom buildings is well removed from land uses that might normally be affected. The larger school and church site have an excellent location being on an arterial street, adjacent to a large drainageway and being a large site. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The use expansion and building involved shouldn't affect the environment of this area. The nearest single family use lies across Rodney Parham Road and is about 304 feet from the proposed classrooms. The uses to the west are a similar distance across grassy flat creek. They are apartments and offices. The primary church buildings lie to the east. 3. Qn-Site Drives and Parking: The site is well served at this time. by a series of paved driveways and parking lots. Therefore, no new paving is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers: Though not required by ordinance, landscape plantings around the southern and western sides of the structures could provide a visual softening effect. 5. City Enrrineer' s Commgn_U : The site appears to lie in the 100 year floodplain. The floodplain should be shown in order to determine if a SFHA September 19, 1995 B IVI IO ITEM O.: 12 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.; _ x`6032 Development Permit is applicable for this work. A grading permit is required prior to any work. Dedicate ROW for Rodney Parham and Van Lee. Rodney Parham is a minor arterial with 45 feet of Row required from centerline. van Lee is a Collector and 30 feet of right-of- way is required from centerline. Stormwater detention analysis is required. Improve sidewalk on Rodney Parham to eliminate tripping areas and install HC Ramp at the Serenity Drive intersection. 6. utility Commences: Water: No issues Wastewater: The Utility has an existing 301, Outfall located on this property in the vicinity of the proposed portable.buildings. No portable building may be placed over the existing Outfall. Contact Little Rock wastewater Utility for details. 7. Staff Analy There are few concerns with this proposal in as much as it is expansion of a current use. There are several items we would encourage the applicant to follow through on. These are: 1. Contact should be made with Building Codes to determine structural compliance with building code. 2. Review siting plan to determine ADA compliance for access. 3. Indicate on the plan, the fence location, now and after construction. 4. Indicate on the plan, the private drive along the west line and dimension.. 5. Place all of the above notes on an up-to-date survey and plot plan prior to filing for a building permit. 81 Otaff Re mm nda i n• Approved subject to staff comment above. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FIVE NO.: Z-6032 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) The Planning Staff presented its recommendation of approval of the conditional use permit as filed subject to the points raised in the staff write-up. The applicant indicates that these design issues can be resolved. Staff pointed out that there was one letter of objection received from an adjacent resident lying to the east of the church properties. several 100 feet from the proposed building location. A brief discussion followed during which the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes. 0 nays. 2 absent and 1 open position. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO,: Z--6033 LOCATION: Hundley - Conditional use Permit 7501 Pinnacle valley Road APPLI T: .john Hundley PROPOSAL: To build a one story. 1..540 square foot guesthouse behind the current residence. (Accessory dwelling provision in R-2) ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: This tract of land lies on the south side of Pinnacle Valley Road about one-quarter mile west of the County Farm Road intersection. It lies within a floodplain of Little Maumelle River which runs west to east behind the property. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This is a rural setting with this owner's property on all sides for some distance. There will be no adverse effect. 3. pn-Site__ Drives and Parking: This residence will utilize the current primary drive with a short new segment to provide a garage entry. 4. Screenina and Buffers: No issues 5. City Engineer's Comments: The site appears to lie in the 1.00 year floodplain and regulatory floodway of Little Maumelle River. The floodplain and floodway with base flood elevations should be shown in order to issue a SFHA Development Permit. A grading permit is required prior to any work. The County Floodplain Administrator will assist in these requirements. Drive should be 18' to accommodate emergency vehicle access. 6. Utility Comments: No issues September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 13 (Cont.)...._, FILE Z-6033 7. gtaff Anal i This property is outside the city limits but within the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The zoning in the area is principally R-2 which requires this conditional use permit. There are none of the usual issues due to very large use separations. The tract has several large buildings now with good landscaping and timber on the lot. The house proposed will hardly be noticed by passersby. There are a couple of cleanup items for the applicant: 1. Provide a written request for separate utility meters if separation is desired. 2. County Planning and development requires a floodplain permit review before construction begins. No building permit from Little Rock is needed. 3. Dimension the new structure on the plan. $. Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to provision of information noted. PLANNING C01WISSION_AgTI: (SEPTEMBER 19■ 1995) The. Planning Staff presented its recommendation of approval of this conditional use permit. Staff reported that there were no issues on this matter. A brief discussion followed during which the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, D nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 19, 1555 ITEM No.: 14 FILE N:-.:_-- Z-6036 NAME: Promised Land - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: North end of Gooch Lane. about 0.15 mile north of Taylor Loop Road QWNE UAPPLICANT: Gary Drawbaugh PROPOSAL: To construct a second dwelling on the land and provide an accessory dwelling, permitted in R-2. ORDINANCE _DE51GN STANiiAR: 1. Sate Location: This tract of land is isolated at the north end of a substandard residential street. Property to the north fronts on Cantrell Road (Hwy. 14). The neighborhood is sparsely developed. 2. Compatibility with Neicxhborhoyd: The site is large enough for two lots and was proposed as a plat at the August 8 Planning Commission meeting. The placing of the second residence will have no effect on the adjacent uses. 3. on --Site Drives and Parking: No issues 4. Scregninct and Buffers: No issues 5. City Enaineer's Comments: No issues 6. Tit i 1 i tv Comments-: No issues, except that contact should be made with wastewater to determine sewer access. 7. Staff --Analysis: This request is a conversion of a preliminary plat filed last month. The owners residence, existing, and significant September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM N 1(Cont.)LE Z-6036 street improvements were cause for a different approach. Mr. Gooch;s house would have encroached on the right-of-way for the street, if platted. This was cause for concern on his part as well as the financial burden the plat would impose. Staff views this application as a good compromise. The only remaining item to follow-up will be, a letter from the applicant requesting separate utility meters if desired. 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIQN: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) The Planning Staff presented its recommendation pointing out that there were not many issues to be resolved. In a brief discussion, the Planning Commission determined that it was appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote 8 ayes, 4 nays. 2 absent and 1 open position. 2 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO, 15 FILE Z -6 Q.37 NAME: Hanks Furniture, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 9900 I-30 OWNERIAPPLICANT: Henry C. Browne PROPOSAL: To construct a warehouse building to serve the existing adjacent stone and several off-site stores. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: This property is located about 1/3 mile west of McDaniel Drive on the I-30 frontage. The abutting uses are mixed, ranging from office to industrial. The site contains some low ground with possible floodplain. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent land to the east is commercial for about a mile on both sides of 1--30, both zoning and usage. To the west there is a scattering of mobile homes which access from, Mabelvale Pike to the north. There is 304 feet to 400 feet separation. The balance of the neighborhood is commercial or industrial. Munsey Products lie; immediately across I-- 30. There should be no adverse effect. 3. on --Site nrives and Parking: These have been reviewed by staff and will serve to meet ordinance at this time. The second phase or future expansion may require additional parking or truck maneuvering and dock area. 4. Screening !InA Buf £ r : There are no design issues of consequence, however the owner should provide parking space marking, landscaping and truck dock areas on the Conditional Use Permit Plan. 5. City En in er'Comments: The applicant has made application for building permit and was informed of Public work's requirements and is in the process of conforming. September 19, 1995 SQBDIVI_SION EM O.: 15 (Cont.) I O : Z-6027 5. utility Co s1. Water, Pro rata front footage charges of $12/foot acreage charge of $150/acre apply in addition to normal connection charge. On site fire protection is required, including an additional private fire hydrant. Wastewater, Sewer available, not adversely affected. Runoff from Detention pond must be diverted away from existing manholes located in the area. Faire: An additional fire hydrant is required. 7. Staff Analysis: This project is before the Commission because the owner proposes to warehouse merchandise for several stores from this building. If he served the on-site store only a conditional use permit would not be required. There are no outstanding issues on this application. There is as we indicated above a potential for more parking or maneuvering space in the future if the second phase is constructed. It is believed by staff that the issues raised on the building permit review will be dealt with by the owner and review of those items is needed here. 8. staff Recommendation: Approval of the plan and conditional use permit subject to items noted above. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) The Planning Staff presented its recommendation which was approval of the application as filed. It was subject to compliance with the items pointed out in the Staff Analysis under utility comments and understanding that a future expansion for phase 11 as reflected would cause additional parking to be required. The applicant was present. He indicated that the staff recommendation was acceptable. The Chairman asked if there were persons present in attendance wishing to comment on this matter. There was at Least one card submitted. A Mr. Jeff Mitchell, a resident of 8529 Mabelvale. Pike, came to the microphone and offered concerns. 2 September 19, 1995 SUHnIVISIQi ITEM NO.: 15 [Cont.,_. FILE NQ._: Z-6037 Mr. Mitchell pointed out that although the staff write --up indicated mobile home usage only to the west and north. His residence does rear upon this development area. He stated that there were several concerns he had that had been discussed with this applicant and an agreement had been reached. The agreement was offered for placement in writing for the staff's file. The applicant indicated that these several conditions were acceptable to him and they would be accomplished. Following a brief general discussion of the application. A motion was made to approve the application with the several items requested by Mr. Jeff Mitchell. These items were: the construction of an 8 foot privacy fence along the east and south property line extending from the southeast corner of the Mitchell property to cover the area left by the clearing of the construction site. The fence is to be extended at least 90 feet due north from the southeast corner of the Mitchell property along the east property line and to be extended at least 64 feet due west from the southeast corner of the Mitchell property along the south property line. It was also agreed that the developer would leave the existing wooded area intact as a buffer and would also plant additional evergreen trees in the buffer between the two properties. A vote on that motion produced 8 ayes, D nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM NO....._..._....._.1-6.._... .,, ,.,,. FILE No.: 9-2479-G NAME: BAPTIST HEALTH LAUNDRY FACILITY -- 110-2" SITE. PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the east side of Emergency Dr., approximately 0.1 mile north of Kanis Rd. BAPTIST HEALTH 9601. I-630, Exit 7 Little Rock, AR 72205 227-8478 AREA: 5.3 ACRES ZONING: O-2 NUMBER OF LOTS,: ENGINEER: Frank Riggins THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. o. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 1 FT. NEW STREET: 4 PROPOSED UaES : Laundry Facility; offices LANNING_DISTRICT: 11 CE 24.44 VARIANCES REOU&ETED: Approval of a variance from the 25 foot front building setback line for the front steps and porches. TATEMRST_OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the construction of a laundry facility to serve the Baptist Health System. The building is to be two stories on the north end of the building, and three stories on the south. (This design is dictated as a response to the elevation change across the site.) Each of the two upper floor will contain approximately 30,000 square feet; the lower floor, the basement, will contain approximately 1.5,000 square feet. The first floor will house the laundry operation; the second, offices; the basement, which opens to the south, will be used for loading and unloading laundry for use by other Baptist Health facilities. The laundry facility building will be connected to the main hospital building by an enclosed corridor. This corridor will also house a pneumatic conduit to carry laundry between the laundry facility and the hospital. Parking for the facility is to be provided across Emergency Dr. to the east. A sidewalk is to be constructed along the Emergency Dr. frontage of the project. September 19, 1995 BD' VISION TEM NO.: 15 {C nt. FILE O.: Z-2 79-G The main entry and side entry porches and steps extend over the front building setback line along Emergency Dr., with the porches extending 7 feet beyond the line and the steps extending an. additional 5 feet. A variance is requested to permit the main and side entry porches and steps to extend 12 feet beyond the 25 foot front building line. Planning Commission review and approval of a site plan for the Baptist Health Laundry Facility is requested. Planning Commission approval is requested of a 13 foot variance from the 25 foot front setback line requirement for the main and side entry porches and steps. H. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The intended Laundry Facility location is on the site with the main Baptist Health Center Hospital building, the MRI facility, the Baptist Rehabilitation Institute, and the parking lots which serve these facilities. The new building will, in fact, take part of the existing parking lot. The site is zoned 0-2, and is part of a large 0-2 tract which extends north, south, and west of the site. A large 0-3 tract lies across Emergency Dr. to the west. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENT : Public Works comments that: The 25 foot and 24.19 foot driveways are too close to each other, and should be spaced further apart. A ramp is to be installed at the northeast corner of the. building. The applicant has agreed to dedicate right-of-way for Kanis and to contribute in -lieu for this project. Water Works comments that an acreage charge of $154 per acre applies: that these charges are in addition to the normal connection charges. Service is off a private fire line. Hack flow prevention is required on both fire and domestic service. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available, but that a capacity analysis is required for the 10" outfall to determine if connection will be allowed. 2 September 19, 1995 1(ContFT Z-2079-( Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 14 foot easement along Emergency Dr. 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 to be added; that the site plan does not show the location of existing hydrants. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with Ordinance requirements. D. ISSSUES1LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: The Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-2, defines a building to include porches or other similar attachments to a building. The building footprint shows porches and steps extending beyond the platted front building line. The site plan review needs to approve a variance for this encroachment, and a re -plat of the lot, relocating the platted building Line, must be prepared and filed. The Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 36-1.26 thru 36-127, requires site plan review for all development in the 0-2 zoning district. The Baptist Health Campus is a continually evolving development, with the taking of a part of the present parking lot for the proposed new laundry facility being the latest change. Parking, then, is being pushed further west, and is further and further from other buildings on the campus. An overall parking analysis is needed to assure that parking is available to the many buildings on the campus:, and that sufficient parking is being provided to both meet the parking needs, but to meet the: Ordinance requirements. E. ANALYSIS: The encroachment of the front porches and steps does not appear to be a problem. It will, however, be necessary to relocate the platted building line if the variance is approved and if the development proceeds. The proposed building is located in a part of the existing parking lot which is located at the rear of the main hospital building, and is not heavily utilized. The hospital, however, needs to work with staff in studying the parking needs and provisions on the campus, and future development needs to be preceded by such a study. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.; Z -2079-Q F. STAFF RECOMMI�NDATIQNS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant working with Public Works on the location of the drive entrances to the site. Staff recommends approval of the front building setback variance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE CQMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlbuger Firm, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the scope of the proposed project, and voiced concern that the applicant is incrementally turning more and more parking areas into building sites, and that the applicant has not presented an overall development plan which provides for adequate parking. Staff pointed out the requested building setback variance which needs to be addressed. Mr. Riggins explained that Baptist Health intends to construct a cancer research center building between the present hospital building and the proposed laundry facility: that this necessitates the laundry facility being as close to the Emergency Dr. right-of-way as is being proposed; and, that the front porches and steps of the building will require a variance from the front setback requirement. He explained that a covered and enclosed corridor will connect the laundry facility with the hospital. He also explained that the second level of the building will be used for offices. Staff noted its concern for adequate parking for the office use and for parking being displaced by the new building. The Committee forwarded the site plan review to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION _ACTT ON: (SEPTEMBER 19■ 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had amended the site plan to make the changes required by Public Works, and that there were no outstanding issues to be resolved. Staff stated, however, that the applicant needed to prepare the overall campus parking analysis which had been discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting and cited in the agenda comments, and needed to meet with staff on the parking issues prior to submitting future applications for development on the campus. The site plan was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays. 2 absent, a abstentions, and 1 open position. 4 September 19, 1995 ITEM 16a FILE N Z -5472-D rrAME: CYPRESS PROPERTIES OFFICE BUILDING --- ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Rodney Parham Rd. and Hinson Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Robert Brown LILAC, LLC DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. 111 Center St. 1.0411 W. Markham St., Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72205 374-4142 221-78843 AREA: 3.882 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 41.8 Z NI 0-3 PROPOSED_' USES: Limited 0-3 uses (pursuant to Ordinance No. 1.6,751) and permitted 0-3 accessory uses PLAMINg DT TRICT• 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REOUESTEn: Approval that a sidewalk be constructed Ln., Wendy Ln., and Hinson Rd. BA K R ND• of a waiver of the requirement along the Valley Club Circle, Buff frontages of the site. Ordinance No. 16,751, passed on Oct.. 4, 1994, rezoned the tract from R-2 to 0-3, subject to: 1) there being no access to valley Club Circle, Buff Ln., & Wendy Ln.; 2) the development conform to the 0-2 area and bulk requirements; 3) the permitted 0-3 uses be limited to specified 0--3 uses (i.e., bank/saving and loan office; church; clinic; duplication shop; religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization establishment; laboratory; library, art gallery, museum, or similar public use; nursing home or convalescent home; office; photography studio; private school, kindergarten, or institution for special education; business school; public or denominational school; broadcasting and recording studio; art, music, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic endeavor school; and travel bureau); 43 the building height be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet; and 5) the site plan being subject to Site Plan Review. September 19, 1995 SIIHDIVISI N I 1(ContFILE NO,: Z - 472--D TATEMENT OF PROPO The applicant proposes the development of the 3.882 acre site with a three-story, 40 foot tall office building to contain 75,004 square feet of floor area. Parking for 229 vehicles is to be provided, with access to the site to be gained from Rodney Parham Rd. and Hinson Rd. No access is proposed from valley Club Circle, Buff Ln., or Wendy Ln. Required widening of Rodney Parham Rd. to provide the additional pavement width for turn lanes is anticipated. Landscaping treatments, in lieu of fencing, are proposed to buffer the residential areas to the north, west, and northwest, except in those areas where, to preserve existing trees or where there is insufficient area for berms, a combination of fencing and landscaping may be utilized. A waiver is requested from the requirement that sidewalks be constructed along the valley Club Circle, Buff Ln., Wendy Ln., and Hinson Rd. frontages of the site. The applicant notes that: 1) there are few trees which remain within the right-of-way, that most which do remain are located along the right-of-way line, so by not constructing a sidewalk along this line, there is a much better opportunity to save the trees; 2) there are no sidewalks anywhere in Pleasant valley along the street frontages; and 3) the existing sidewalk on Hinson Rd. is located along the south right -of --way line, across the street from the site, and placing a sidewalk on the north side, along the boundary of this project, will lead no where, and will, if used, cause pedestrians to have to cross over Hinson Rd. at Wendy Ln., an unprotected intersection. A. PROPOSALlREQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed site plan is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along the Valley Club Circle, Buff Ln., Wendy Ln., and Hinson Rd. frontages of the site is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIQNS: The site is a compilation of two tracts, with each of the existing tracts containing homesteads. The site is zoned 0-3, with the development and uses of the site being restricted by ordinance No. 16,751. Across Rodney Parham to the east is a PCD zoned tract which has never been developed and is subject to revocation. Across Hinson Rd. to the south is a large R-5 zoned tract and, to the west of this area, a small 0-3 zoned tract. An 2 September 19, 1995 EUBDIVISIIiN TEM NO.: 15a(Cont.)FILE Z- -12 complex occupies the corner tract of the R-5 zoned land; an office building is located in the 0-3 area. To the north, west, and northwest is R-2 and R-4 land, with homes being situated on the R-2 land and the Pleasant Valley golf course being located in the R-4 area. C . ENGINEERI11GLUT_I_LITYCOM144NTS : Public Works comments: Dedicate additional right-of-way for a right turn lane on Rodney Parham, and add a lane as previously advised by Traffic Engineering. Install sidewalks on the other frontages, with handicap ramps. Provide the stormwater detention analysis. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available in the right-of-way of Buff Ln., Wendy Ln., and Hinson Rd. The developer will be responsible for bringing service from the existing main to the property. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement around the entire perimeter of the site, and a 10 foot easement along the alignment of the relocated underground electric service. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not respond. The Fire Department commented that the site plan appears to meet the Fire Department's regulations on entry/exit access, interior driveway width, and proper number and spacing of fire hydrants. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist commented that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping are in keeping with Ordinance standards. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement to construct sidewalks along Hanson Rd., Buff Ln., wendy Ln., and Valley Club Circle. Such a waiver will require Board of Directors approval. 3 September 19, 1995 SUSDIVI51 ITEM NO 15a (Cont.) FILE NO. _Z -5472-D Ordinance No. 15,751 which rezoned the property to 0-3 required that the bulk and area requirements of the 4-2 zoning district be observed in the site development. Sec. 35-284 requires, in 0-2 zoning districts, that the front, side, and rear yard setbacks are to be not less than 25 feet. E. ANALYSIS_: The site plan conforms to the 0-2 zoning district requirements for bulk and area, and to the requirements for site plan submittals. The applicant proposes to meet all requirements of the rezoning ordinance regarding building height and uses. F. STAFF ATI S: Staff recommends approval, of the site plan. The Public works staff recommends denial of the waiver of the sidewalk improvements on the boundary streets. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Kincaid, with Cypress Properties, and Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the scope of the proposed project, and reviewed with Mr. Brown the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff representative, David Scherer, with the Civil Engineering staff, discussed the Public Works comments, specifically mentioning the design requirements for widening Rodney Parham Rd. to provide additional lanes, the need to widen the entrance drive off Hinson Rd. and to modify some of the interior traffic lane widths and flow patterns, and the need for sidewalks along all boundaries of the site. Mr. Brown responded that he would meet with Hill Henry, the Traffic Engineer, and would resolve the traffic concerns. He indicated, however, that the waivers for sidewalks which were being requested would be pursued. The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. Robert Brown, with Development Consultants, Inc., was present. Staff reported that all issues regarding the site plan were resolved; that the only issue involved the requested waivers of 4 September 19, 1995 UBDIVI I N ITEM NO.: 16a (Cont.)FILE NQ, :_5--5472-D street improvements along Hinson Rd. and Wendy Ln., Buff Ln., and Valley Club Circle. Mr. Brown explained that, since a sidewalk on Hinson Rd. would terminate at the west property line of the site and there is no sidewalk on the remainder of the north side of Hinson Rd., both because it did not make sense to build the short section of the sidewalk, and because it would encourage pedestrians to walk to an unsignalized intersection to cross to the sidewalk on the south side in lieu of crossing Hinson Rd. at the signalized intersection at Rodney Parham Rd., a waiver was requested. He said that, as far as the sidewalks on Wendy Ln., Buff Ln., and Valley Club Circle are concerned, nowhere else in Pleasant Valley are sidewalks constructed; that no access is being taken to these streets from the project; and, that landscaping can be enhanced along these boundary streets if the sidewalks are omitted. No one was present to speak in opposition to the site plaza.; however, it was noted that Ms. Mary Zemann, of #10 valley Club Circle, had completed an attendance card, indicating opposition to the request, but was not present at the time the item was heard. A motion was made and seconded to approve the site plan, but to make no recommendation on the boundary street sidewalk waiver request, leaving a discussion of this issue to the Board of Directors. The motion carried and the site plan was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, Q abstentions, and 1 open position. 5 September 19, 1995 ITEM N 17 Z-6031 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing use: Martha Portoni Martha Portoni 6701 Shaner Circle Rezone from R-2 to AF, Agriculture and Forestry Add wholesale plant nursery business to this site 1.5± acres Single -Family residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family residence, zoned R-2 South - vacant, wooded tract, zoned R-2 East - Single -Family residence, zoned R-2 West - Single --Family residence, zoned R-2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS No comments related to this rezoning request. Comments were made relative to the conditional use permit application which is Item No. 8 on this agenda (Z -6031-A). LAND USE ELEMENT The site is located in the Crystal Valley District. The adopted Plan recommends Single Family. The site is located outside the city limits within the Little Rock zoning area. Staff has gone on record that "AF" zoning would be treated as single family zoning in this area. Therefore, the request is in conformance with the Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS The request before the Commission is to rezone this 1.5± acre tract from R-2 to AF. The property is currently occupied by the applicant's single Family residence. An application for a conditional use permit (Z -5031-A) has been filed requesting approval to add a wholesale plant nursery to the site. The property will continue to be occupied by September 19, 1995 SUBDIVIS ISN ITEM NO.: 17 Z-6031 (Cont.) the applicant and two greenhouse structures will be constructed on the rear portion of the property if both the rezoning and conditional use permit are approved. The AF district is intended to provide a smooth transition between purely rural areas and newly urbanized areas, allowing flexibility adequate to permit reasonable absorption of land use types typically found in the urban fringe. The site is located outside of the city limits but within the extraterritorial zoning boundary. AF zoning is typically treated as single family zoning in this area. The AF rezoning request is in conformance with the plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested AF rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSIONACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) This item and Item No. 8 (Z -6431-A) were discussed concurrently. The applicant, Martha Portoni, was present. There were two objectors present. Two letters of opposition had been presented to Commission members. Staff presented both Item No. 8 (Conditional Use Permit, Z -6031-A] and Item No. 17 (AF rezoning, Z-61331) together with a recommendation of approval in both cases. Martha Portoni, addressed the Commission and briefly described the material to be used in the construction of the greenhouses. In response.to a question from Chairman Walker, Mrs. Portoni stated that the business would employ herself, her husband and one other person. Walter Clements, of 6310 Shaner Circle, addressed the Commission in opposition to the items. He stated that he was concerned about commercial development in the area. During a discussion of deliveries to and from the site, Mrs. Portoni stated that there would be no delivery trucks and that .she would be making any deliveries herself. Sandy McCowen. of 6410 Shaner Circle, addressed the Commission in opposition to the items. She stated that the Portonis are bringing in bags of leafs at night. Ms. McCowen also stated that there was an old mobile home on the property, behind the Portonis' house. 2 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM N 7 Z-6031 nt. Mrs. Portoni responded that the business was not much above the level of a hobby. She stated that the business would be quiet and that there would be no more than one vehicle at a time coming and going from the property. Mrs. Portoni stated that she would remove the mobile home from the property. A motion was made to approve the AF rezoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position. Commissioner Chachere asked about access to the site from the rear. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the Commission could restrict access from the rear if it chose to but that staff saw no reason to do so. Mr. Clements and Ms. McCowen asked about possible run-off of water and chemicals from the site. Mr. Carney pointed out that the use was totally enclosed and that. there would be no outside storage or display of plants. He noted that the City's stormwater detention ordinance was not applicable in this case. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit subject to removal of the mobile home from the property and compliance with the City Engineer's Comment to pave the driveway to a point approximately 50 feet from the street. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position. 3 September 19, 1995 ITEM O.: 18 FILE N 4-A NAME: PARKWAY OFFICE SUBDIVISION, LOT 2 -- SIDEWALK WAIVER LOCATION: On the west side of Hardin Rd., at the north end of the Hardin Rd. cul-de-sac, approximately 0.1 idle north of Financial Center Parkway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER.- John NGINEER: 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: 6.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 4 ZOING: 0-3 & OS PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REOUESTED: N.A. PROPOSED USES: Offices The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Parkway Office Subdivision on December 3, 1991. Coupled with this approval was a recommendation for approval of three variances, which were subsequently approved by the Hoard of Directors in Ordinance No. 16,140, passed January 7, 1992: the cul-de-sac was permitted to exceed the 300 foot maximum length allowed by the regulations: the commercial street right-of-way width was permitted to be 50 feet in lieu of the required 60 feet; and, the commercial street width was permitted to be 27 feet in lieu of the required 36 feet. A sidewalk was specifically required along all rights-of-way frontages in the subdivision, and was provided when the Government Service Administration (GSA) building was constructed on the opposing lot to the northeast of the Hardin Rd. cul-de-sac. (The GSA and the applicant's buildings are the only two buildings to have been built to date in the subdivision.) Additionally, the sidewalk was required at the time the applicant's building permit for the building on Lot 2 was as approved. September 19, 1995 SUDDIVISI N ITEM NO.: 18 Cont.) FILE NO.: S -934-A STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for the 400 foot (t) frontage of Lot 2 of the subdivision on which he has developed a 50,000 square foot office building. The applicant indicates that the steep slope of the land immediately behind the curb, between the curb and the parking lot in the area where the sidewalk would be constructed, would necessitate a retaining wall being provided, adding unnecessary costs; that there is very little pedestrian traffic along Hardin Rd.; that a sidewalk exists the entire length of Hardin Rd. on the opposite (east) side of the street; and, that there are no residential lots abutting the street. He explains that a sprinkler system and landscaping are already in place where the sidewalk would go. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST : Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a waiver of the requirement that a sidewalk be constructed along the Lot 2 frontage of the subdivision. H. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The 0-3 zoned portion of the site is developed. A 50,040 square foot, single -story office building, with accompanying parking area, has been constructed on the lot. The area between the back of the Hardin Rd. curb and the parking areas has been landscaped. The site is zoned 0-3, with a 50 foot wide OS strip lying along the west and north property lines. Abutting property to the north and rarest is zoned R-2. Across Hardin Rd. to the east is 0-3 and PCD property. (The PCD property is the location of the Courtyard by Marriott hotel, and this property is not in the Parkway Office Subdivision.) The property to the south is zoned C-2 and C-3 and is the site which was approved for the construction of the Hampton. Inn hotel. At the corner of Hardin Rd. and Financial Center Parkway is a C-3 tract which has been cited as a probable restaurant location. C. ENGINE$RING/TTILITY_COMMENTS: Public works comments that the applicant made a $5,000 in - lieu contribution for the required sidewalk; that this in - lieu contribution was made in order to obtain a Certificate of occupancy for the applicant's newly completed building. The applicant, in a letter, guaranteed to build the sidewalk 2 September 19, 1995 ITEM NQ. 1S (Cont.) FILE No. S- 934--A or to seek the needed wavier within 60 days; the 60 -day time period lapsed on February 15, 1995. The applicant's engineer was contacted and advised of the need to resolve the issue, but, after six months had elapsed and nothing had been done to either build the sidewalk or seek the needed waiver, the $5,000 check was processed. Public works points out that the sidewalk was required from the time the preliminary plat was approved and was specifically provided for when the building permit was issued. Public Works points out that the lawn sprinkler system and landscaping were installed in the area set aside for the sidewalk after the 60 -day period had lapsed. Public Works recommends that the sidewalk be required to be constructed by the applicant; that the waiver be denied. Public Works recommends that, if a waiver is approved, that the in -lieu Contribution be forfeited by the applicant. water Works reported no comments. Wastewater reported no comments. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not respond. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern. Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIG: Sec. 31-209 in the Subdivision Regulations and the master Street Plan require a sidewalk along both sides of commercial streets. A waiver of this requirement requires Board of Directors approval. E. ANALYSIS: The requirement for a sidewalk was specifically dealt with and provided for in both the approval of the preliminary plat for the subdivision and in the approval of the building permit for the applicant's building. The GSA building at the opposing segment of the cul-de-sac has the required sidewalk. The applicant chose to wove ahead with installing the sprinkler system and landscaping in the area of the required sidewalk without first seeking the waiver, and has sought the waiver after these were installed and after Public works processed the in -lieu check. The site immediately to the south is approved for a hotel; the site further south, at the corner of Hardin Rd. and 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM No.: 1.8 (Cont.) FILE S -934 -A Financial. Center Parkway, is proposed as a restaurant site. Should these sites develop as anticipated, to include eating establishments, there is likely to be pedestrian traffic to and from these sites, and tenants of the applicant's building and of the GSA building will be the probable users. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the waiver. Staff recommends that, if a waiver is approved, the applicant's in -lieu payment be forfeited. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. John Rees, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, with McGetrick Engineering, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the nature of the request for a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Rees explained the rationale for requesting the waiver: that there is and would be practically no pedestrian traffic along Hardin Rd.; that the slope is too great behind the curb to install a sidewalk without constructing a retaining wall; and, that the expenditure for the sidewalk would be an unneeded and an excessive cost. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMIMION A TION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. John. Rees, the developer, was present. Staff outlined the requested waiver, recounting the history of the situation as explained in the staff report. The Commission, however, in a general discussion, came to the position that, since the Commission is advisory only on waiver issues, the hearing of the waiver request should be held by the Board of Directors. A motion was made and seconded to refer the waiver request to the Board of Directors without a recommendation by the Commission. This motion was approved with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3 absent, 4 abstentions, and 1 open position. 4 September 19, 1995 ITEM N 19 FILE No.: ame: Valley Drive Name Change to Elaine Drive Locatio Valley Drive from the corner at Watson School to its south terminus at Yorkwood Drive petitioner: Reauesj;. To change the name only on the ~° north -south leg. 1,Ab=tina uses an own r hi s All of the abutting lots are zoned or used single family or low density residential. The entire frontage of the street for 314 mile is platted as residential. 2. Nei hb rhood Ef f rad P i i This neighborhood is split on this issue with owners and tenants north of Mabelvale Cutoff opposing and south of there requesting the action. There will probably be a number of people present to argue against the petition. 3. Eff t on Pu lic ervi c gg None, except that Public Works staff and 911 Emergency Services will require involvement if approved. STAFF ANALYST The history of this street name is long and involves several subdivisions, plus the street direction change at Watson School which creates two east --west legs and the north -south leg. City policy has always been to avoid name conflict or misdirection in naming of streets but this one happened nearly 34 years ago. The proposal presented is a reasonable modification of the street name conflict. However, it appears that the objection north of Mabelvale Cutoff suggests another solution. The only quick fix and one that leaves the objectors out of the change would be to rename only the Yorkwood leg south of Mabelvale Cutoff with new signage at that intersection. In any event all involved persons should be aware that change of a street name causes disruption of a home, a business, church or any land use and should be carefully thought out. September 19, 1995 SIIHDIVISIQI� IT 19 (ContJ FILE No.: G-25-170 ING COMMISSION -ACT ION: (SEPTEMBER 19. 1995) The Chairman identified item No. 19 and indicated that the staff should present its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, came forward identifying himself as the staff member reviewing and preparing the agenda item. Wood offered a brief history of this application. The involvement of the numerous property owners signing petitions both for and against the application. Wood identified the street name as being Elaine Drive, that was proposed for placement on the north -south leg of Valley Drive. Wood indicated the numbers of persons signing petitions both for and against the application. He indicated that there were approximately 10 persons that signed the petition initially in favor but now oppose the name change. Wood stated that Planning Staff typically does not offer a specific recommendation nor do we involve ourselves in the process determining what name should be applied. This is left to the neighborhood, specifically those persons living on that street. The names selected by those residents would be acceptable so long as it did not conflict with any other street name in the city. Wood stated that staff feels somewhat compelled in this circumstance to offer a suggestion as to a remedy. In this instance, it appears that the majority of the opposition to the change is on the original segment of Valley Drive lying north of Mabelvale Cutoff and the larger body of support signatures comes from the Yorkwood Subdivision lying south of Mabelvale Cutoff. The Staff feels that changing the name south of the cutoff would serve this application at this time. There are perhaps persons living on the Yorkwood segment of the roadway that may disagree with the name change. The Chairman accepted the staff's presentation and recommendation. Chairman Walker then posed a question to those persons in attendance as to whether there were objectors to changing the name south of Mabelvale Cutoff only. At this time, one came forward with a comment of objection. The Chairman stated that in as much as the 12 to 15 persons present did not oppose the change recommendation by staff and there does not appear to be a reason to proceed further. He placed the item on the floor before the Commission for a motion. The specific action to be on renaming the street to Elaine Drive south of Mabelvale Cutoff to its southern terminus. At this point, a commissioner noted that there was a person attempting to gain the attention, of the Chairman. She came forward offering a comment. She stated that did not oppose 2 September 19, 1995 allBDIVI, T 1 ITEM No.: .19—(Cont.)FILE G-25-170 limiting the name change to that area within the Yorkwood Subdivision; however, she did oppose changing the name to Elaine Drive. Her question was should we not be applying a name in this area more compatible with the type of name that applies in this subdivision that being old English style names, such as Guinavere and Yorkwood. Chairman Walker then stated that perhaps since the issue had been reduced to this smaller segment of street, then perhaps the item could be deferred for resolution by those persons as to the appropriate naming with perhaps a notice to other parties beyond that area, if there would be an effect or change in the position. The Chairman then recognized Mr. John Lamb. Mr. Lamb came forward representing himself as one of the persons initiating this petition. He stated that he represented the Yorkwood Neighborhood Association. Mr. Lamb offered a history of this application and petition. He indicated that the neighborhood had held a number of meetings. There was a selection committee that developed a number of names that were offered for use as the change. During the course of these meetings and the selection process, Elaine Drive was chosen. Mr. Lamb stated that he knew that there was someone present opposed to the name selected. However, they could not address everyone's concern and had to come up with a name for replacement in the petition. The unidentified person who identified herself as a resident on Valley Drive in Yorkwood stated that she was not aware of any of the meetings that had been held on this. Her first notice of change came from a notice that was placed on her door. Chairman Walker pointed out that the Commission typically is not good in these kinds of situations with respect to arbitrating differences. He asked that Richard Wood, of the Staff, offer some history on how these kinds of things are dealt with. Wood restated a previous comment that staff and city personnel do not get involved in selecting name changes, except with respect to eliminating potential conflict. He indicated that perhaps in this situation the best means of resolution is for the committee to go back to the neighborhood people and hold another meeting to determine whether or not they can come to some change agreement or whether they are at a circumstance where we have only one person's objection. This person may continue to be dissatisfied with the name that is chosen. Chairman, Walker asked Mr. Lamb if they had a problem with doing that. Mr. Lamb indicated that there is a monthly meeting of the neighborhood association. Chairman Walker directed a question to Tim Polk, of the Staff, as to how the staff felt about this matter as it has developed. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 4COntFILE NO.:_ G_-2 5170 Mr. Polk indicated that he felt perhaps the neighborhood needed to go back and discuss the item further. In a following brief discussion between staff and commissioners, it was pointed out that there is not a requirement that 100% of property owners or residents approved of a name change. There is only a majority occupant requirement for participation in order to get the item before the Planning Commission and the City Board. The final arbiter is the City Board through a resolution. This discussion was followed by a brief discussion between Mr. Lamb and Chairman walker concerning deferral with Chairman. Walker pointing out that he felt this issue really needed more discussion. Walker pointed out that a deferral would bring this item back to the Planning Commission at the October 17 public hearing. If there are no problems or continuing objections with the name at that time, perhaps it could be placed on the Consent Agenda and approved without further discussion.. Commissioner Adcock then posed a question of Mr. Lamb as to how many times this matter had been brought up at the property owners' association meeting. He stated the matter had been brought up approximately 4 months ago and discussed at every meeting during the past 4 months. A brief discussion then followed between Commissioner Adcock and the person who was present objecting to the "Elaine" name change. A question was presented and clarified concerning the 12 names offered from which Elaine was chosen. The objector pointed out that she could not make the 5:00 meeting. This is the time that the association meets. Tim Polk, of the Staff, asked the Chairman if it would be appropriate for Wood to come forward and make a comment on this item of name selection. Richard Wood came forward and presented a brief statement reminding everyone that again we do not participate in the selection of the name and do not require that a 100% approval be presented from all the residents along the street. wood pointed out that staff feels it would be appropriate to defer this item to the last meeting in October which is the 31st and is the next Subdivision Hearing date. This would give everyone six weeks to deal with this matter and attempt to come to some resolution. Again Wood reminded the Commission and those present that the objectors may not carry the day. They may not resolve this issue to their satisfaction. Chairman Walker then brought the item to a close by offering a motion himself. The motion being that this item be deferred to the next Subdivision Hearing which was identified by Staff as being the 31st and pointing out that the consideration at that time would be the name change of Valley Drive, south of Mabelvale Cutoff through the Yorkwood Subdivision and should other portions 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM, 1 n FILE N -25-170 of Valley Drive, north of Mabelvale Cutoff be reintroduced for change that those property owners and neighborhoods be notified. A vote on Chairman Walker's motion produced 8 ayes, 4 nays. 2 absent and 1 open position. The application is deferred to October 31. 5 September 19, 1995 ITM 20 FT MEN -23-240 Name: Cypress property utility easement abandonment Location: 333 feet east of Wendy Lane on northside of Hinson Road (in phase IT Pleasant Valley Addition). Owner/Applicant: Cypress Properties by development consultants by Robert Brown Proposal: To abandon an easement running north and south along the east side of Lot °A" P.V. phase 11, between Valley Club Road and Hinson Road. STAFF REVIEW; 1. Public Need for This Right,-of=wav None evidenced by this review, in as much as the utilities in place will be moved westward and on the same lot. 2. Master Street Plan No issues 3. Need for Right -of --Way pn Ad-iacent Streets None associated with this petition. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain Gentle grade across lots with a drainage ditch nearby and parallel 5. Development Potential None, except if abandoned in the manner requested so as to allow de'v'elopment of abutting lots with one building. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect Little or none since the existing services will be relocated. September 19, 1995 SUHDIVISIQN ITEM NO.; 28 (Cont..) FILE NO. G-23-240 Neighborhood Position None, both abutting lots are party to the development that will place a building over the right-of-way as now situated. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilitioss None. Relocation is planned at developer's cost. 9. Reversionary Rights None. No title issue involved. 10. Public welfare and Safety Iggues None UTAFF RECOMMENDAT�QN: This petition is carried on this agenda as a companion item to the site plan review in Item 16A. The building indicated on that plan sits across the lot line at this easement. The developer has worked with utility interests to relocate the current facility somewhat west of the current alignment. The staff recommends that the request be approved with a condition in the ordinance protecting the possibility that the project fails after ordinance passage and there is no new easement of record. 2 t I I ANIT'Il �-- ° w vLU I. z ,L, Zi ¢ �z� Awaz ¢ ��k>-� 0m m Z�_�X< C) 7 L Qa, =zQP- mU a�ccO¢<' ate. ) L[1 P� ¢ r- cn cn F -- z uj Q) m a W 7— z i �l I September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Date Chairman