Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_05 16 1995subI. II. LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD MAY 16, 1995 Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten in number. Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 1995 meeting were approved as mailed. Members Present: Members Absent: City Attorney: Brad Walker, Chairman Suzanne McCarthy Emmett Willis, Jr. Ramsay Ball Bill Putnam Doyle Daniel Pam Adcock Joe Selz Diane Chachere Mizan Rahman Ron Woods None Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION AGENDA MAY 16, 1995 I. DEFERRED ITEMS: A. Global Interdenominational Revival Center -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -5874-A) B. Harrison Place Apartments -- Short -Form Planned Development -Residential (Z-5961) C. Donahue -- Short -Form Planned Residential Development (Z-5964) D. Kingwood Place Subdivision, Lots F1 and F2 -- Waiver of Subdivision Regulations (S-1059) E. First Bible Missionary Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5973) F. Brodie Creek Community -- Conceptual Long -Form Planned Residential Development (Z-5963) G. Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood -- Amended Long -Form Planned Residential Development (Z -5963-A) II. PRELIMINARY PLATS: 1. Otter Creek Community, Lots 850, 851, & 852, Phase VIII -- Preliminary Plat (S -45-A-17) 2. Chenal Valley Office Park -- Preliminary Plat (S -868 -II) 2a. CWC Subdivision -- Lot 2 Pe -plat (S -1056-A) 3. Dean Wisdom Subdivision, Lots 16R, 17R, & 18R -- Re-plat (S-1058) 4. Chenonceau Commercial Park -- Preliminary Plat (S-1065) 5. Pebble Beach Estates -- Preliminary Plat (S-1067) III. PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS: 6. Moore Mortgage Co. -- Short -Form Planned Development -Office (Z -5570-A) Agenda, Page 2 7. West Markham Auto Mall -- Amended Short -Form Planned Development -Commercial (Z -2245-D) 8. Freeway Business Park, Lot 6 -- Amended Long -Form Planned Development -Office (Z -4249-B) 9. Hinson Park Addition -- Amended Short -Form Planned Development -Office (Z -5105-A) 10. Lowe -- Amended Short -Form Planned Development - Office (Z -5745-A) 11. Young -- Short -Form Planned Development -Commercial (Z-5979) 12. Downen -- Short -Form Planned Commercial Development (Z-5981) IV. SITE PLAN REVIEWS: 13. Hooper Bond Addition, Lot 3 -- Site Plan Review (5-156-M) 14. Atkinson Dental Clinic -- Site Plan Review (S-1066) V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: 15. Daniels Automobile Repair and Service -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -4814-A) 16. Zion Wheel Baptist Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5983) 17. Son of God Ministries Church and Day Care Center -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5982) 18. Montessori Day School -- Conditional Use Permit -- (Z-5984) 19. Agape Church -- Conditional Use Permit (Z -3789-E) 20. Jackpot Car Wash -- Conditional Use Permit (Z-5985) VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENTS: 21. North Pierce Street -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-232) 22. Fairview Road -- Right -of -Way Abandonment (G-23-233) Agenda, Page 3 VII. REZONINGS• 23. Lots 1-12, Block 50, Josephine Pankey's Third Addition, from R-2 to R-5 (Z-5896) 24. The West 1/2 of the fractional N.E. 1/4, Section 6, T -1-S, ,R -12-W (5017 Baseline Rd.), from R-2 to C-3 (Z-5978) VIII. OTHER MATTERS: 25. Morris Commercial Subdivision Preliminary Plat -- Time Extension (S-980) 26. Steve's Speed and Truck Accessories -- Conditional Use Permit Time Extension (Z -2477-B) 27. Mid-America Center -- Amended Short -Form Planned Residential Development (Z -4985-C) May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z -5874-A NAME: LOCATION• Global Interdominational Revival Center - Conditional Use Permit 1608 South Rock Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Rev. Bobby Marshall PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit has been requested allowing for the use of this R-2 zoned, two-story residential structure as a church. STAFF COMMENT The applicant has failed to provide staff with any information regarding the use proposed for the property at 1608 S. Rock Street. Without this pertinent information, staff was unable to properly review the application. Staff recommends that the item be deferred to the April 4, 1995 Planning Commission meeting and that the applicant be directed to provide the required supporting documentation to staff no later than the February 27, 1995 filing date. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had failed to provide any information regarding the use proposed for the property. Also, no proof of notification to the property owners within 200 feet had been submitted. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting. In its vote, the Planning Commission also directed the applicant to provide the required supporting documentation to staff no later than the February 27, 1995 filing date. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff informed the Committee that the applicant had not provided any of the required supporting documentation. After a brief discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission with a recommendation that the item be withdrawn. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 - PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had provided the required information, but it was too late for the information to be reviewed and considered in this agenda. As such, the applicant requested a second deferral, this time to the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the May 16, 1995 Commission agenda to allow for staff review. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstaining (Willis). ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: 1608 S. Rock Street is located on the west side of Rock Street, between East 16th and East 17th Streets. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located in the heart of an older, established residential neighborhood comprised primary of single family homes with a scattering of duplex residences and some larger homes which have been converted to multifamily. Although the surrounding uses are primarily residential in nature, there are several non-residential uses within the immediate vicinity including other churches and a large nursing home. If the proposed use were more of a traditionally defined small church, with worship meetings two days a week and some minor level of other associated activities, it would be more compatible with the neighborhood. However, in addition to the "traditional" biweekly worship times, this church will provide a wide range of community and social programs which conceivably could involve activities at the site from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 - 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. Staff feels that a use generating this level of activity within what is basically a residential structure is not compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The applicant has indicated that a congregation currently numbering approximately 14 persons meets for worship at the site. Based on a parking requirement of 1 on-site parking space for each 4 persons, 3 on-site parking spaces are 2 i May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO A (Cont.) FILE NO.: 17-5874-A required. The upper floor of this two story structure will be utilized by the applicant as his dwelling, requiring 1 on-site parking space. The site currently has no on-site parking and none is proposed. 4. Screening and Buffers: Based on the fact that no outside activities such as a playground or parking lot are proposed, there is no screening or buffering required. 5. City Engineer's Comments: a. If access is taken from the alley to any parking proposed on the site, improve the alley. b. Repair broken sidewalk and curb C. Traffic Engineering recommends denial due to lack of on-site parking. 6. Utility Comments: No comments from the utility companies 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of the existing, R-4 zoned residential structure located at 1608 S. Rock Street as a church and dwelling. The second floor of the two-story structure will be utilized by the applicant as his dwelling. The first floor of the structure is proposed to be used by the Global Interdenominational Revival Center as a place of worship and to provide various community and social services. The applicant has submitted the following calendar of activities which would take place at the site. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874 - SUNDAY 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. MORNING WORSHIP 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. EVENING WORSHIP MONDAY 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. SPIRITUAL AWARENESS BIBLE STUDY TUESDAY 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PARENTING SESSIONS WEDNESDAY 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. PRAYER/BIBLE STUDY 7:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. TRUSTEE MEETING THURSDAY 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. FOOD PANTRY COMMUNITY SPEAKERS FRIDAY 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. COMMUNITY YOUTH OUTREACH SATURDAY 5:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. VETERANS CRISIS WORKSHOP In addition to the above activities, the church will provide counseling services daily from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicant has also stated that he will utilize one bedroom of his dwelling to provide temporary shelter to individuals in need of a place to stay. The applicant states his goal is to provide these needed services to persons living in the immediate community surrounding the church. The counseling and intervention programs are aimed at an increasingly volatile younger population which is turning more and more to gang activity. The parenting sessions are designed to provide counseling and training for parents and expectant parents. The church will also distribute to the community food stuffs which it has received through donations from various businesses and individuals. while it is undeniable that there is a need for all of these activities, staff questions the appropriateness of utilizing this residence in such a manner. The site is located in the heart of what is primarily a single family residential neighborhoods. There has been substantial private and public effort made to revitalize properties within close proximity of this site. The applicant proposes to utilize the property basically "as is" without providing any site improvements such as on-site parking which are typically associated with such a use. Finally, based on the applicant's schedule of proposed activities, it is conceivable that there could be activities at this site from 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m., seven days a week. This level of proposed activity is not compatible with the neighborhood. As such, staff cannot support this application. 4 I May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this application as being too intensive a use and incompatible with this residential neighborhood. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. Staff presented the item and the schedule of activities proposed by the applicant. The City Engineer's Comments were noted. Rev. Marshall briefly discussed the proposed use and the importance of providing the proposed services to the community. it was noted that the church would primarily serve residents of the neighborhood who are within walking distance of the site, thus lessening the impact of no on-site parking being provided. Rev. Marshall was asked to provide more information on his proposal to utilize one bedroom of the home to provide temporary lodging to persons in need. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant, Rev. Bobby Marshall, was present. There was one objector present. One letter of opposition had been presented to the Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Rev. Marshall addressed the Commission in support of his application. He stated that it would be a mistake to miss an opportunity to help this distressed neighborhood. Rev. Marshall continued by stating that his programs provide needed opportunities for the residents of the community. He closed by stating that the City had ignored the neighborhood and allowed it to deteriorate. Commissioner Willis asked Rev. Marshall if he had considered reducing the level of activity at the site so that there would not be activity 7 days a week. Rev. Marshall stated that he would be willing to amend his application, as long as he is able to maintain a presence in the neighborhood. Chairman Walker stated that the Planning Commission's struggle is that a particular location may not be appropriate for a proposed 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A use although the need for the services offered by that use may be great. Rev. Marshall stated that Global (Global Interdenominational Revival Center) had no plans to "homestead" at 1608 Rock. He stated that an alternative location may soon be available. He then invited Commission members to come to the site and view his operation. In response to a question from Commissioner Woods, Rev. Marshall stated that the new location, on MCAlmont Street near the Rockefeller School, would be available in approximately 4 months. In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Jim Lawson, Director of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, stated that there were many zoning districts which allow churches, although a conditional use permit may be required in some districts. Mr. Floyd Marshall addressed the Commission in support of the application. He asked the Commission to identify ways to reduce activities which would allow Global to remain where it is. Rev. Marshall reiterated that Global would be moving. He stated "that is the bottom line." Rev. Marshall continued by stating that he recognized the historical value of the neighborhood and that he was working to beautify the area. Commissioner Chachere asked Rev. Marshall if he would amend his application to ask for approval, with a time limit. Floyd Marshall stated that the proposed new location might also require a conditional use permit and that a time limit should allow adequate time to go through the process at the new site. Commissioner Ball asked Mr. Lawson if staff would recommend approval of an amended application which included a time limit and a reduction in the level of activity. Mr. Lawson responded that there were too many unknown issues to speculate on such a proposal. Mr. Lawson stated that staff would be glad to meet with Rev. Marshall to consider an amended application. Commissioner Chachere asked if there had been any code enforcement activity at 1608 Rock Street. Kenny Scott, of the City's Code Enforcement Staff, responded that there had not been any enforcement at that location. Commissioner Chachere questioned staff's interpretation that the proposed use is too intensive for the site. Mr. Floyd Marshall stated that Global had helped the community and asked what the citizens of the City wanted. C i May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A In response to a question from Commissioner Rahman, Rev. Marshall stated that Global's social activities included G.E.D. educational programs and classes and a community food distribution program. He stated that as many as 400-500 boxes of food are distributed at a time. Chairman Walker stated that it had been suggested that a one year period be approved. He asked Rev. Marshall if he would be inclined to amend his application to reflect a one year approval. Rev. Marshall responded that he wished to modify his application to a one year approval. Rita Spillenger, of 1609 Cumberland, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item. She stated that she was uncomfortable opposing such a program in theory, but questioned why Rev. Marshall did not seek a more appropriate location. Ms. Spillenger stated that those people who were opposed to this application were not necessarily opposed to the goals of the program. She stated that she was suspicious of a temporary approval. Ms. Spillenger stated that there was currently a tremendous amount of activity at the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Chachere, Ms. Spillenger stated that Global should locate to a site that is properly zoned. She stated that she had made complaints to the Code Enforcement staff but was told that any enforcement would be suspended until the Planning Commission acted on the application. Ms. Spillenger stated that she believed the neighborhood to be no safer for Rev. Marshall's presence. In response to a statement from Commissioner Putnam, Ms. Spillenger stated that activities have taken place at 1608 Rock for the past 2 1/2-3 years. Jim Lawson stated that the applicant had not yet proposed any reduction in the level of activity at the site, only a one year time limit. Commissioner Adcock stated that she agreed with staff's recommendation. She stated that the item had been deferred and modified numerous times and that activities had been taking place on the site the entire time, without proper approval. Commissioner Rahman stated that he agreed with Commissioner Adcock. Commissioner Daniels noted that the applicant had proposed to relocate in 4 months and that no application had been filed for the new location. He questioned if the applicant was going to wait and then drag the process out at the new site. 7 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5874-A After a further discussion, Jim Lawson urged the Commission to vote on the item. Commissioner Willis noted that it was time for the applicant to amend his application. He then briefly discussed with the applicant eliminating some of the activities at the site. Commissioner Chachere also urged a reduction in the level of activity at the site. Commissioner Woods stated that, in a good faith effort, the applicant should get the process started to gain approval to use the proposed new site. Chairman Walker stated that a condition will be added that an application be filed for the new site within 30 days of the Commission's action on 1608 Rock Street. Commissioner woods stated that he wanted the condition added that any approval be only for one year and that the property revert to residential at that point, regardless of the outcome of the application which is to be filed for the new site. Commissioner Willis noted that there had not yet been any proposal submitted to reduce activities at 1608 Rock Street. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Jim Lawson stated that it would be very difficult to enforce an hours of operation limitation for this proposed use. A motion was then made to defer the item to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to further refine and amend his application. The vote on the motion to defer was 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstaining (Daniels). I May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z-5961 NAME: HARRISON PLACE APARTMENTS -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Harrison Street and Evergreen Street DEVELOPER: DR. JAMES METRAILER 417 N. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 666-0249 AREA: 0.32 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 15 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: ARCHITECT: Mr. Greg Peckham HILLHOUSE ASSOCIATES 111 Center St., Suite 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1662 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Multi -Family Residential None The applicant proposes a Planned Development -Residential in order to develop a multi -family residential project to contain 4 attached "townhome" dwellings on a 3.07 acre lot. Each of the townhomes is to be a two-story, 1,250 square foot dwelling unit. The front of the units will face Harrison St. At the rear of each unit is proposed to be a private yard area. Beyond the rear yard area, abutting the alley along the west boundary of the site, concrete parking pads are proposed to be constructed. A dumpster area is also proposed to be located off the alley. On- site parking for 7 vehicles is provided. Improvement to the alley is to be accomplished to City standards. An additional 2.5 feet of right-of-way along Evergreen St. is proposed, as is construction of concrete sidewalks along both boundary streets with a handicap ramp at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the PD -R is requested. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.• Z-5961 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. There is a single-family home abutting the site to the north and one across the alley to the west. The improvements in the alley are substandard. There is a steep change in grade from the alley level down to Evergreen St. The site is zoned R-2. There is R-2 zoned property to the north, south, and west. Across Harrison St. to the east is a C-3 zoned tract which contains a shopping center and an apartment building. To the southeast is an R-4 zoned area which contains other multi -family dwellings. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works Comments: 1) Dedication of additional right-of-way for Evergreen St. is required. Evergreen is a collector, and the Master Street Plan requires collector streets to have 60 foot rights-of-way. 2) A 25 foot turn radius will be required at the Evergreen St. -Harrison St. intersection. 3) Storm drains must be constructed pursuant to the regulations, and stormwater detention from the added runoff must be provided. 4) The width of improvements to the alley must be 20 feet if primary access is taken from the alley Additional dedication may be required to adequately install the alley improvements. 5) A concrete apron is required from the right-of-way line to the street for the alley. 6) Sidewalks are required on both boundary streets. 7) A grading permit will be required. Water Works has no comments on this item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and there is no adverse effect. A 6" sewer main is located in the alley. Wastewater Utility should be contacted for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not provided comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The project narrative needs to deal with whether the units are anticipated to be held under one ownership or sold as individual townhome. The site involves using two existing platted lots. As part of the PD process, a replat of the two lots can be prepared and filed to combine the lots. If a replat is prepared, the required dedication of the additional right-of-way along the Evergreen St. frontage of the site can be dedicated. If a replat is not prepared, the required right-of-way dedication can be accomplished with a quit -claim deed. The tract size is 14,000 square feet. Four units are proposed, which is a density of 12.5 units per acre. In an R-4 zoning district (the 2 -family district), the requirement is for one duplex on a minimum 7000 square foot lot. With the 14,000 square foot lot, two duplexes (four unity) would be permitted. The MF -12 zoning district permits 12 units per acre. The proposed development, at 12.5 units per acre, is very close to this density. The site is currently zoned R-2, as is the abutting property. In the R-2 zoning district, the minimum side yard setback is 10% of the lot width, not to exceed 8 feet. The site is composed of two 50 foot lots, with a total width, after dedication of the right-of-way along Evergreen St., of 97.5 feet. Landscape review comments that the buffer requirement along the northern and southern property lines is 5 feet in width. The landscape ordinance requires a width of 6 feet of landscaping north and south of the proposed vehicular use areas. A buffer is required to separate single-family and multi -family use areas, and this buffer can be either dense evergreen plantings or a "good neighbor" fence. A solid building wall with no openings can meet the qualification for the required fencing. The Planning Division comments that the site is in the Heights -Hillcrest District. Although the adopted Land Use Plan recommends single family development, the density of the proposed residential use is not significantly above that M May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 of single family. This, together with the site being across the street from multi -family uses, justifies the proposed use within the single-family classified area. E. ANALYSIS• The density of the proposed development is not significantly different from other development in the area, and is not in conflict with the Land Use Plan for the area. If single-family homes were built on the two 50 foot wide lots, the side yard setback could be 5 feet. This 5 foot side yard setback from the home to the north is what is proposed for the development. The side yard along the Evergreen St. side of the development is proposed to be 7 feet, after dedication of the additional 2.5 feet of right- of-way. The development provides the required number of off-street parking spaces. The regulations require 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (Sec. 36-502(1)d.), which is 6 spaces; 7 are provided. The required dumpster area, buffers, landscaping, and street and alley improvements are being provided. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Dr. James Metrailer, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and the applicant and his architect reviewed the staff comments contained in the discussion outline. The Committee reviewed these comments with the applicant, and the applicant responded that all needed changes would be made and all requirements would be met. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff reported that all technical issues had been resolved, and indicated that, except for neighborhood opposition, the item would have been recommended for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for approval. Staff related that objections expressed by neighbors included: rental units being placed in a predominantly owner -occupied neighborhood; two-story units being in a predominantly one-story neighborhood; increased traffic on the 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 streets and in the alley; and, trash pick-up at night or early morning. Staff, as a response to this latter concern, recommended that dumpster servicing be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays. Staff recommended approval of the proposed development. Dr. Jim Metrailer, the owner, reported that he had owned the site for approximately 10 years and that it is vacant. He related that, to the east, across Harrison St. is the back side of a shopping center and a 3 -story, high density, apartment building. To the southeast, diagonally across Harrison and Evergreen Streets, is a duplex development. He concluded, then, that the 4-plex townhome development which he proposes, would be a good transition to the single-family neighborhood to the west. Mr. Greg Peckham, the project architect, outlined the proposal. He said that the architecture is designed to blend with the single-family character of the neighborhood, with each unit having a front porch with columns, and construction being of brick and wood. He said that, although the units are to be approximately 1250 square foot, two-story homes, the roof line is to be lowered to reduce the scale of the two-story construction. He said that all requirements of the City staff had been addressed. Ms. Margery Anderson, identifying herself as owning the home immediately to the north of the proposed development, and as being the one who would be the most affected by it, spoke in support of the development. She said that the vacant lot, as it now exists, grows up in weeds; that there are snakes and beer cans on the lot; and, that the lot is used as a parking lot for trucks by one of the neighbors across the alley. She said that the proposed four-plex, with its columns and porches, would be an asset to the neighborhood, and that Hillcrest needs new development. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the development, saying that the existing zoning does not permit the duplex use, nor does the Land Use Plan provide for such a development. She said that if the multi- family use is permitted to cross Harrison St., it could be the first of many incremental encroachments. She urged the City to hold to the adopted Land Use Plan. Ms. Mary Boaz, identifying herself as a resident of the area, living on Polk St., spoke in opposition to the requested re- zoning. She said that the use was "commercial", and that whenever you have rental units, the residents are more transient. She said that the neighborhood is predominantly owner -occupied single-family, and that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 Ms. Jan Bowman, identifying herself as living on Harrison St. at the north end of the block from the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She said that the home next to her's is a rental unit, and college students live there. She said that these college students disturb the peace of the neighborhood and are a nuisance. She said that the proposed development would attract more college students, and this would add to the problem. She said that parking would be a problem, since there is limited parking on-site; there is not off-street parking provided for two of the four existing homes on Harrision St., and since Harrison St. has parking allowed only on the west side. She said that the apartments across Harrison St. face east onto a courtyard, and do not affect the neighborhood across Harrison St. to the west. Ms. Martha Cross, identifying herself as a resident of the immediate area, said she opposed the request. She stated that apartments are a business for Dr. Metrailer, and that the proposal, then, is for a commercial use of the property. She said that four units is too many units for the land, and that the development would increase traffic and trash. She said that townhouses are not in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Mary Lake identified herself as living directly to the west of the proposed development, and she spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She said that all the comings and goings would be from the alley, which is directly behind her home. She objected, she said, to the increased noise, disturbance, and traffic which would result from the apartments. She said that her carport is on the alley, and that, when work is done in the alley during the construction of the development, she would not have access to her carport. Ms. Beth Lipsmeyer, whose residence is at the northeast corner of Tyler St. and Evergreen St., spoke in opposition to the development. She said that the apartments would cause an increase in traffic, and would adversely affect the character of the existing single-family neighborhood. Mr. David Mann, whose residence faces Tyler St., and whose rear - entry driveway would be opposite the proposed development, spoke in opposition to the development. He said that the apartment project would cause an increase in traffic in the alley, through which he and others have access to their drives and carports, and having to share the alley with apartment traffic would cause problems for them. He objected to a dumpster being located at the northwest corner of the project, across from his property. He said that the neighbors had been misled by Dr. Metrailer's use of the term "townhouse", which, he felt, has the connotation of owner -occupied homes, versus the term "apartment", which connotes rental units, which, in turn, mean a high turn -over rate of residents. He objected to rental units being permitted in the May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 neighborhood, saying that the residents in the neighborhood look out for one another and want to know their neighbors. The turn- over associated with rental units, and the character of renters, does not permit this type of neighborliness to exist. He questioned the amount of alley which would be available and which is shown on the site plan, versus the amount of alley which is in use at the present time, saying that property owners abutting the alley might have to give up some of the land which they are currently using. He stated that he and his wife oppose the development. Ms. Jean Miller, a resident of "L" St. at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the development. She said that traffic is heavy on the streets in the area, with traffic heading towards Kavanaugh Blvd., and that if the alley is made into a thoroughfare, traffic will cut through the alley en route to Kavanaugh. Mr. Pat O'Dwyer, whose residence faces Tyler St., with the rear of the lot facing the subject alley, spoke in opposition to the project. He said that 8-12 additional people living on the block was too many people. He objected to the development of the alley to provide the rear access to the townhomes or apartments, saying that it would take land from his lot, and would increase noise and litter in the alley. He said that he objected to renters living in the neighborhood. Ms. Rose Perrymore, who identified herself as a property owner living in a home which faces Tyler St., and whose rear yard faces the subject alley, said that she objects to the development. She said that the other neighbors have expressed her concerns, but added that that development would not increase property values of the single-family homes in the area. She said that everyone will eventually want to sell their home, and having apartments in the neighborhood will make it harder to sell them, since, she said, people do not want to live next door to apartments. Mr. Jerry Sears, identifying himself as owning a home which faces Tyler St. and whose rear yard abuts the subject alley at the north end of the block, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He said that a 2 -story townhouse does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood; that the neighborhood does not have 2 -story building. He said that traffic, especially the traffic entering the Evergreen and Kavanaugh intersection, backs up onto Harrison and Evergreen, and that traffic cuts through the other neighborhood streets trying to avoid the intersection. He said that improving the alley will prompt drivers to cut through the alley as they head for alternate routes to avoid the Evergreen - Kavanaugh intersection. He said that, in the past few years, the property owners in the block have tried to turn the block and neighborhood around, to stop the decline and deterioration which had been occurring; that only one home in the block is now a 7 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 rental unit, and the property owners do not want to see the number of rental units increased. He complained that rental units are not kept up on the outside, and renters do not participate in neighborhood clean-up and fix -up efforts. He said that all the other blocks in the area have twelve homes per block, and that their block already has twelve homes in it; that building four more living units on the block would be too dense. Dr. Metrailer, responding to the neighbors, concerns, said that he had grown up in the neighborhood; that his mother had lived in the neighborhood until she died recently and his children attend the neighborhood school. He said that he had felt that the townhome development would contribute to the neighborhood's stability and value. He had reviewed, he said, the possibility of moving onto the lots some older homes which would be renovated, but had concluded that these would not add to the value of the neighborhood. He said that with proposed rents of $800.00 per month, he had felt that college students would be precluded from renting the units. He related that he was proposing to maintain the exterior of the buildings and the lawns himself. Dr. Metrailer, responding to specific complaints and concerns which neighbors had related, said that trucks parked on his property were one of the neighbor's, not his; and, he said that he had reviewed the possibility of developing the site with single-family homes, but that people do not want to live across the street from apartments, so the townhome development had seemed to be a good transition from the multi -family across the street and act as a buffer for the single-family neighborhood. He reminded the Commission that, when Mr. Sears stated that there are no two-story buildings in the neighborhood, he was omitting the information that he had recently gained approval from the Commission for an apartment unit in his back yard, and that the apartment unit is a two-story building. Commissioner Daniel asked for clarification on the nature of the improvements to the alley and the location of garbage pick-up. Dr. Metrailer responded that the grade of the alley would be adjusted to a provide proper grade transition from Evergreen onto the alley. He explained that there would be no dumpster as a garbage container on the site; that individual garbage containers, the "green monsters", would be used. Staff interjected that, since the development is a multi -family development, normally, private dumpster service is required. Dr. Metrailer said that he had talked with sanitation, and that the townhouse development would be treated as individual homes, with "green monsters" being able to be used. Chairperson Walker confirmed with Dr. Metrailer that, if dumpster service is required, he would agree to limiting the servicing of 93 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 the dumpster as suggested by staff: from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, to which Dr. Metrailer assented. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the width of the alley. Mr. Peckham responded that the plat shows a 20 foot wide alley easement, and that, to assure no conflict with existing fences or structures on the west side of the alley, the proposed site plan shows paving to begin several feet off the rear property line of the lots to the west, and, shows dedication of several feet of additional right-of-way off Dr. Metrailer°s side of the alley to provide adequate maneuvering and parking space for vehicles. The space provided along the west alley easement line should, he said, provide adequate transition space between the new grade of the alley and the existing carport grades of the homes to the west. Commissioner Ball asked staff if staff had any reservations on its recommendation for approval of the development. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson said that the addition of four dwelling units to the area, in an area with multi -family developments existing across the street, and where homes are built on smaller lots, would, in staff's opinion, not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the proximity of rental units to the proposed project site. Dr. Metrailer responded that, in addition to the 3 -story multi- family development directly across Harrision street to the east, there is a duplex development diagonally across the Harrision- Evergreen intersection from the site. He said that within a couple of blocks, there are other rental units. Chairperson Walker called the question, but, because the vote was 4 ayes, 5 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent, with the request not getting the requisite 6 votes either for or against the proposal, the item was deferred until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, and indicated that the item had been deferred from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing due to the provision of the Commission Bylaws which provides for an automatic deferral if an item does not receive at least 6 ayes or 6 nays. Staff again recommended approval of the request, indicating that, in staff's opinion, the four -unit townhome would be a viable transition from the commercial and multi -family uses 0 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 to the west across Harrison to the single-family residential area. Staff indicated that a letter from the Hillcrest Residents' Association had been received in which the Association had recommended denial of the requested PD -R, and reported that a copy of the letter had been placed at each Commissioner's desk. Dr. Metrailer, the applicant, was present. Dr. Metrailer reiterated his position from the April 4, 1995 hearing: that the lots are not attractive for development as owner -occupied single- family dwellings; that rental property, multi -family rental property, is not uncommon in the Hillcrest area; and, that the development would be an attractive addition to the area, neighborhood, and to Little Rock. He said that, with the three- story multi -family building directly across the street from his lots, with the back of a strip shopping center cater -corner to the northeast from the site, and with duplex/multi-family development cater -corner to the southeast from the site, the site is not desirable as a site on which a new owner -occupied home might be built. He presented a map showing the numerous rental units in the area. He pointed out that, with Evergreen St., the side street of the property, being a collector street, and with the amount of traffic which uses Evergreen St., the lots are not desirable lots for development for owner -occupied single-family dwellings. He related that he had talked with Realtors, and that they had confirmed that a high-quality townhome development in the area would be a boon to the area. He pointed out that, architecturally, the townhome units had been designed to be complementary to and blend with the area; and, that he would commit to maintaining the yard and exterior of the townhome units. Staff pointed out that there had seemed to be some misunderstanding at the previous Commission hearing concerning the extent of the alley improvements. Staff said that the alley would be improved only in the area immediately behind the applicant's property, not the full length of the alley. The steep approach to the alley from Evergreen Dr. would be adjusted to provide a usable approach. Ms. Mary Boaz, a resident of the area, spoke for a group of residents who are in opposition to the request. She asked the group of residents who were in opposition to the item to stand, and presented each Commissioner with a copy of a petition containing 47 names of residents of the area who are in opposition to the requested re -zoning. She presented a map of the area immediately surrounding the proposed development with the households noted who were in opposition to the request, supported the request, or who had not indicated a preference. She pointed out that there is strong opposition shown. She presented a map of the immediate area which showed the number of homes which are owner -occupied homes versus rental units, and said that the area is overwhelmingly owner -occupied. She said 10 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 that the neighbors do not want rental units built. She presented a map which showed the length of time people had lived in the neighborhood, and mentioned that some had been residents of the area for 30-50 years. She said that there is a strong commitment of the residents to the neighborhood, and that it is a real neighborhood. Rental units would undermine this, she said. She disputed Dr. Metrailer's contention that the lots would be undesirable for development for single-family residences, pointing out that one of the residences immediately across from the back of the shopping center had just been sold to an owner - occupant within the past year and a half; and, that she would have bought the house next door to that particular house if it had been placed on the market in lieu of being made into a rental unit. This disproves, she said, Dr. Metrailer's argument concerning the lots potential for development for single-family residential use. She said that parking would be a problem on Harrison St., since there is inadequate parking being provided for the townhomes. She reiterated that the rental units would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as it exists, and would undermine the sense of "neighborhood" which is important to the people who live in Hillcrest. She said that the two-story, zero lot line townhomes do not fit in with the cottage character of Hillcrest, and that townhomes could affect the Hillcrest application for inclusion into a Historical District. Dr. John Graves, reporting that he was representing the Hillcrest Residents' Association, spoke in opposition to the requested PD- R. He said that the Association is an advocate for the people in the neighborhood, and, with the strong opposition to the development by the neighborhood, the Association was reflecting their position. He said that the Association was concerned that the residential integrity of the neighborhood would be adversely affected by the approval of such a townhome project. He said that the project does not conform to the predominantly single- family character of the area; that Harrison St. is a clear line of demarcation between multi -family and commercial uses and the single-family uses. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson cautioned the Commission about making a decision based on whether the occupants would be renters versus owner -occupied. He said that renters cannot be seen as "second class" residents. He said that, given the fact that there are multi -family residential uses directly across the street and cater -corner across the street, with commercial uses cater -corner to the north-east, staff could support the townhome development. If these multi -family and commercial uses had not been present, then the staff recommendation would have been different. He said that he could not imagine someone building a new house at the site of the proposed development. 11 l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5961 Chairperson walker called the question, and the item was denied with the vote of 5 ayes, 6 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 12 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-5964 NAME: DONAHUE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the north side of Simpson Street, north of the Milburn Lane intersection DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Ben Kittler, Jr. Ms. Juanita Donahue BEN KITTLER, JR. LAND SURVEYOR 1010 S. Hughes St. 6133 Dena Dr. Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72206 664-0865 888-3960 AREA: 0.86 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 REPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 24 CENSUS TRACT: 40.01 Multi -Family Residential and Beauty Salon VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the street frontage of the site is requested. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a Planned Residential Development to develop the 0.86 acre site to include the construction of a 4 -unit multi -family building and a beauty salon building. The multi -family building is proposed to be a single -story facility with four 1,580 square foot dwelling units, with a total square footage of 6,320 square feet. The beauty shop building is proposed to be 1,364 square feet. Parking for 12 vehicles is proposed for the multi -family units; parking for 6 persons is proposed for the beauty shop. The applicant proposes that employees of the beauty shop are to be the residents of the multi -family units to provide affordable housing for these employees, and to provide work in close proximity to their residence and to area child care. No improvements to the street bordering the site and no sidewalk construction are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval by the Board of Directors for establishment of the PRD is requested. Approval of a waiver of the requirement May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964 to construct a sidewalk along the Simpson St. frontage of the site is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. It has been cleared of most trees. The site is zoned R-2, with R-2 zoned property on all sides. There is a church located on the property immediately to the east, and a single-family residence stands immediately to the east of the tract. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: 1) The driveways are not in conformance with the Ordinance. Only one driveway is allowed per 300 feet of street frontage. A concrete apron will be required within the right-of-way. 2) A sidewalk will be required to be constructed along the street frontage of the site. 3) A stormwater detention analysis may be required. A grading permit will be required. Water Works had no comments on this item. Wastewater comments that sewer is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. provided no comments. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. provided no comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. provided no comments. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape review comments that the required buffer width south of the proposed parking lot is 7 1/2 feet (The minimum requirement with allowed transfers is 6 feet.) The Landscape Ordinance requirement is 6 feet. The plan submitted provides from zero to 4 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen is required along the northern and western site perimeters. This screen may be a wooden fence with its face directed outward or be dense evergreen planting. A 3 foot wide building landscape strip between the public parking areas and the buildings is required. If a dumpster is to be used, its location should be identified and then be 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964 screened on 3 sides with an 8 foot high opaque wood fence or wall. Sec. 36-452(1)b. permits incidental commercial and office uses in a PRD. Beauty shops are conditional or accessory uses in the three office zoning districts. Parking for office uses is to be one space for each 400 square feet of floor area; for commercial uses, one for each 300 square feet of gross floor area; and, for multi -family residential uses, 1.5 spaces per dwelling. The Planning Division comments that the proposed development is in the College Station District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends single family uses for the area. A Planned Residential District with primarily a residential character and "incidental,, non-residential uses may be compatible in the area. E. ANALYSIS• The mixture of residential and "office"/beauty shop uses is appropriate in a PRD, since the non-residential use is "incidental" to the primary residential use of the property. The access to the off-street parking areas will need to be re -designed to provide the single access point to the site. Simpson St. is a recently completed CDBG-funded street project. when Simpson St. was constructed, no sidewalks were provided. There is scattered development in the area, with a great deal of vacant property. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, and the Planning Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the sidewalk requirement for the Simpson Rd. frontage of the property. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Ms. Juanita Donahue, the applicant, and Mr. Ben Kittler, the project surveyor, were present. Staff outlined the proposed development and reviewed with Ms. Donahue and Mr. Kittler the various comments contained in the discussion outline. Ms. Donahue said that the size of the proposed beauty shop would be reduced by one-half in order for the beauty shop use to be secondary, or "incidental" to the residential use of the property. Mr. Kittler reported that the original plan included purchasing the church property to the east, and that the site plan included this area. A revised site plan would be provided, W May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964 he said, to eliminate the church site. The Committee confirmed with the applicant that all staff comments would be addressed, then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the proposal, indicating that the applicant was applying for a planned development in order to construct a 4-plex and a 1300 square foot beauty shop, and that the applicant is requesting a wavier of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Simpson St. frontage of the site. Ms. Linda Parham, identifying herself as residing a block and a half from the proposed development site, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She said that the area where the proposed development is to be located is totally single-family in character, and that the proposed development would increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic. She expressed concern that the development would cause an in crease in drug traffic, relating that just a few blocks away is an apartment project which has a substantial drug problem and much violence. She related that her family had sold the property to Ms. Donahue, and that the sale had been with the understanding that Ms. Donahue would build a beauty shop and a duplex. Mr. Ben Kittler, representing Ms. Donahue, said that Ms. Donahue is a disabled school teacher, and that she proposed to construct the 4-plex and beauty shop as a means of providing employment to local young persons and a nice home for persons who would be working in the beauty shop. She is, he said, to be the manager of the beauty shop, and that her daughter, who is a beautician, would operate the shop and live in one of the units. He said that the hours of operation would be form 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM, Tuesdays through Saturdays. He said that the entire site would be fenced; there would be a security system in the beauty shop; and, that the site would be monitored by Ms. Donahue°s daughter. Commissioner Willis asked for clarification on the signage proposed and on the number of off-street parking spaces. Mr. Kittler replied that whatever signage is permitted in the office zoning district would be agreeable, and that he would re- design the site to eliminate one of the curb cuts and provide the necessary off-street parking. Staff pointed out that, in lieu of the site plan showing one single lot containing both the apartments and beauty shop, the site plan could be amended to show splitting the site into two lots, one for each of the uses. This, staff explained, would 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5964 permit the two driveways off Simpson St., one for the apartment use area and one for the beauty shop use. Commissioner Adcock asked for clarification on the rationale for the Planning staff's recommendation for approval of the waiver of the sidewalk requirement. Staff explained that streets in the area had recently been constructed with curb and gutter by the City thorough the Block Grant program, and that a sidewalk had been constructed along Simpson St. on the south side of the street; that, if the applicant were required to construct a sidewalk in front of her property on the north side of Simpson St., the length of sidewalk would be the only sidewalk on that side of the street and the sidewalk would not extend beyond the boundary of the applicant's property. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification on the number of employees of the beauty shop, to which Mr. Kittler responded that there would be six. Commissioner McCarthy then observed that five parking spaces are shown, with six employees being proposed, to which Mr. Kittler responded that the employees would be living and parking in the adjoining apartments; that the five parking spaces would be for clients. Commissioner McCarthy pointed out, though, that six operators are proposed to be employed, and that each operator would have one client with home she would be working and one client waiting. Chairperson Walker inquired of the Commission members if it was the desire of the Commission to deal with the incomplete site plan and permit the applicant and staff to "flesh -out" the details prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors, or whether it should be deferred to permit the applicant to present an amended application to the full Commission. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting, and the motion carried with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved; that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the parking concerns expressed at the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing. Staff reported that Public Works was in support of the requested waiver of the sidewalk along the Simpson St. frontage. Staff recommended approval of the PRD and of the requested waiver. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 5 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-1059 NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul-de- sac, at #7 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: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1 -acre lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which contains an existing single-family residence and which would have 61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46 acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4 acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately 240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and is designed to provide the required access to the rear building site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve the proposed lot split. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1.059 the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing residence on the property which is located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a drive along the south property line for access to a second building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed for the second building site is heavily wooded. The property is zoned R-2, with R-2 being the zoning on all surrounding properties. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the pipestem needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right- of-way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and mailboxes for both lots must be shown. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant has requested a "lot split". Sec. 31-143 of the Code provides that "the Planning Commission hereby delegates to and designates the Planning Director the authority for approving lot splits, where a single lot ... is being split into two (2) lots. The minimum lot size shall be governed by the lot size specified by the zoning ordinance classification of the subject property." The R-2 zoning district (Sec. 36-254) requires a minimum of 7,000 square feet for single-family lots. Sec. 31-231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public street...", and Sec. 36-254 states that, in the R-2 zoning district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than sixty (60) feet...." A "Pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31-2) as one with a narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear yard. Sec. 31-231(8) states that "pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions". E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except K i May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 for one of the lots being proposed not having the required minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots meet the requirement of the R-2 zoning district, since each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this restriction is required for each lot to have the required frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting or denying the waiver. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right-of-way line, and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the driveway from the proposed Lot F1. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request, and Vice -Chairperson Willis, noting the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved directly to the objectors for their presentations. Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this existing development. Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying that pipestem lots are bad planning. Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Vice -Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting. Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and which restrict lot splits. Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item and indicated that, because of the of a quorum when the item was heard at the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, the members present had voted to defer item to the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. 9 lack the May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1059 Mr. Joe White, representing the applicant, presented the applicant's request. (Chairperson Walker, the applicant, left the room, and was not present for the hearing of the item.) He pointed out that the applicant's current lot is nearly 1 acre is size, and that, with the lot split, each of the new lots would exceed 20,000 square feet of area. The minimum lot size for an R-2 residential area, as provided for in the zoning Regulations, is 7,000 square feet; for an R-1 area, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Each of the two new lots, he said, would meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations except for the waiver of the pipestem prohibition which was being requested. Mr. White explained that there had been, even as late as the previous evening, negations for access to an abutting tract to the west, and that, if these negations were successful, the request for a pipestem waiver would be withdrawn. There was discussion involving several Commissioners on whether the hearing on the item should be deferred to permit negotiation to continue, which, if successful, would make the hearing on the pipestem waiver moot. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the item; however, when the applicant indicated that a deferral was not being requested, a motion was made, seconded, and approved to expunge the motion to defer the hearing. Mr. Charles Brown, Attorney, representing the residents along Sunset Circle, spoke in opposition to the requested waiver. He questioned the applicant's motivation in seeking the pipestem, saying that the neighbors suspected that the applicant was attempting, by way of the pipestem, to provide access to the abutting tract to the west, and, thereby, be able to develop that property. He questioned whether the pipestem waiver was the extent of the waivers which are required by the Regulations. He pointed out that the existing Lot F has 61.16 feet plus 27.38 feet of frontage along Sunset Circle; that if 30 feet for the flared pipestem is deducted from this, the remaining frontage is less than 60 feet, and this reduced frontage does not provide the required minimum frontage, as prescribed by the Subdivision Regulations, for the Lot F1. He said that an additional waiver, then, is required to permit Lot F-1 to have less than 60 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle. He quoted the Subdivision Regulations which state that all lots must have frontage on a public street, except where the Planning Commission approves a private street, and said that the rear lot, Lot F2, would have to have a street constructed to it in order to meet the Regulations. He said that the applicant must show that there is sufficient reason, a "real burden", to justify waiving the Regulations which have been adopted as the standard for development in the City, and suggested that this has not been done. He said that the proposed lot split would create lots which are out of character with the A May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1059 neighborhood. He complained that development of the rear lot would cause a house on that lot to face the rear of other houses in the neighborhood instead of towards a street, which is the way houses are supposed to face. Mr. Brown related that, indeed, in the original Bill of Assurance, the lettered lots were permitted to be subdivided; however, he said, a few years later, the owners of the lettered lots along Sunset Circle entered into an agreement that prohibits subdivision of their lots. This agreement, he said, is binding on Lot F. This prohibition, he maintained, showed the commitment of the owners of the lots along Sunset Circle to retaining the large -lot character of their neighborhood. Staff explained that the Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-232(b), provides that the width of the lot is measured at the building line, and that the dimension of Lot F-1 at the building line, meets the Regulations. No waiver is needed for the width of Lot F-1. Staff also explained that the pipestem provides the required frontage on a public street; that this is the reason for the requested waiver, and that, with the pipestem frontage, a private driveway, not a street, will be constructed in the pipestem to the building site of Lot F2. Staff explained that the pipestem would provide access for one building site; that it could not be used for access to abutting property to the west for additional development. Staff explained that, indeed, the abutting tract to the west could be combined with Lot F-2, but that such a combination would still only provide one building site. Ms. Yvonnie Law, an owner of the abutting property on Sunset Circle, reiterated her opposition to the requested waiver, repeating her position from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, adding, however, that if Tract F were not divided, then the needed access to Tract M would be granted. Mr. White responded that, if indeed, the access to Tract M were provided off Pine Valley Rd., then the applicant was prepared to withdraw the lot split-pipestem waiver request. Mr. Charles Ensminger, an area property owner, living on Pine Valley Rd., asked that all the persons in attendance who are in opposition to the requested action to stand. (A number of persons stood.) He voiced his opposition to the change which was being proposed, and urged the Commission to deny the waiver. Mr. Joe Scerbo, an owner of a home on Sunset Circle, reiterated his opposition to the proposed development, and questioned staff on the meaning of the Subdivision Regulations relative to width of the lot being measured at the building line versus at the right-of-way and the ability of the pipestem to provide access to Tract M to the west. He said that it was not fair to measure the 0 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 width of the lot at the building line, but to measure the width of the pipestem at the right-of-way. Staff responded that the pipestem could, if approved, provide access to build one home only; that subdivision of Tract M, with access to Tract M being provided by the pipestem, would require a public hearing. Mr. Scerbo said that he suspected that the applicant had ulterior motives in requesting the pipestem, and said that he suspected that development to the west would involve extending Sunset Circle to the west, allowing persons to have the prestige of a Sunset Circle address. This would destroy the character of the existing cul-de-sac street. Mrs. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle property owner, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Mrs. Sandy Magness, an owner of a home immediately next door to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Ms. Jan Cozort, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the proposed action. Lt. Col. (Retired) Byron Magness, an owner of the property immediately adjacent to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Bonnie Peek, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the request. She related that her husband, Richard Peek, is a surgeon, and could not be present, but that she, her husband, and her children opposed the waiver. Mr. White pointed out that pipestem lots are not unusual; that they are provided in the plats for Chenal, for Foxcroft, for St. Charles, etc., and that they are routinely approved in subdivisions. The motion made earlier to grant a deferral of the item was called. Vice -Chairperson Willis determined that the deferral would be until the May 30, 1995 Commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent (walker). 7 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-5973 NAME: LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location First Bible Missionary Church - Conditional Use Permit 11001 Shenandoah Drive Larry Bork, Pastor; First Bible Missionary Church The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the use of a portion of this R-2 zoned residence as a temporary place of worship. The double car garage is to be converted into a small chapel accommodating 15-20 persons. Approval is requested for a period not to exceed three years. The property is located at the southeast corner of Shenandoah Drive and Antietam Drive, just east of the Shiloh Subdivision. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The property is located in an area just east of the Shiloh Subdivision comprised primarily of vacant single family residential lots and large, undeveloped, heavily wooded tracts. All adjacent property is vacant and zoned single family residential. The site is separated from the nearest single family residence by vacant lots. No structural changes are to be made to the exterior of the structure and it will maintain its residential appearance. As a temporary use for this small congregation, the proposed church should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking The site contains a driveway which will accommodate four vehicles. A worship area with a seating capacity of 20 persons requires five on-site parking spaces. Both Shenandoah Drive and Antietam Drive dead-end just past this site and there is no other development on this portion of these streets. May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5973 4. Screening and Buffers No screening or buffering is required for this proposed temporary use. The structure will still serve primarily as the pastor's residence. 5. City Engineer Comments No comments 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments No comments 7. Analysis 11001 Shenandoah Drive is the residence of the pastor of First Bible Missionary Church. A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the use of a portion of this residence as a temporary place of worship for this small congregation of 15-20 persons. The applicant proposes to convert the double car garage into a chapel. No other structural changes are proposed and the structure will maintain its residential appearance. The property is located in an area of vacant residential lots and undeveloped tracts. Both streets which border the site dead-end just past the property, further isolating it from the adjacent residential development. Staff feels that the temporary use of a portion of this residence as a place of worship for this small congregation will not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The applicant should review the Bill of Assurance for Shenandoah Subdivision to determine whether this use is in violation of any of its provisions. 8. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions: a. The approval is to be limited only to this small congregation with an attendance of 15-20 persons. b. The use of this property a period of three years Commission approval. 2 by the church is not to exceed from the date of Planning May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5973 C. Signage is to be limited to that allowed only in residential one and two family zones. d. No ancillary activities such as a private school or day care program are to be operated at this site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item. After a brief discussion of the proposed use of the house by the church, the Committee determined there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 18, 1995) The applicant, Rev. Larry Bork, was present. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval, with conditions. Rev. Bork addressed the Commission in support of his application. He questioned the condition in the staff recommendation which limits the approval to only this small congregation with an attendance of 15-20 persons. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, responded that the intent was to limit approval to this specific applicant, meaning that another church could not use this property based on this applicant's approved conditional use permit. Cloie Perry Morgan, of Perry Construction Company (the developer of Shenandoah Subdivision) addressed the Commission in opposition to the application. She stated that the proposed church would generate excessive traffic through the neighborhood. Ms. Morgan stated that the residents of Shiloh Subdivision had just recently, successfully petitioned the City to barricade Oxford Valley Drive at Legion Hut Road to keep traffic from driving through the Subdivision from the Chicot Road area to Mabelvale Cut-off. Ms. Morgan questioned the appropriateness of placing a church at this site and stated that it would negatively impact potential sale of other lots in the Shenandoah Subdivision. Albert Straub, of 8806 Manassas Circle, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item. He presented a petition signed by residents of the Shiloh Subdivision in opposition to the proposed church. There were approximately 139 signatures on the petition. Mr. Straub also presented a letter from John Mayfield, president of the Shiloh Neighborhood Association, asking that the application be denied. Mr. Straub concluded his remarks by stating that the church was a business and that residents did not want a business in the neighborhood. Q May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5973 Rev. Bork responded to some of the concerns raised by Mr. Straub and Ms. Morgan. He stated that the primary use of the structure would be as his residence and that only the two -car garage would be used for the church. Commissioner McCarthy asked Rev. Bork what was proposed to happen at the end of the three years requested. Rev. Bork responded that the congregation hoped to grow to a point where they could afford to relocate. He stated that the church had been in existence since 1960 and was at one time in a building on Young Road. The congregation dwindled and the building was sold. Rev. Bork stated that the congregation now met in an apartment. Commissioner Adcock asked Rev. Bork how he will handle church growth during the next three years. Rev. Bork responded that the church would relocate if it outgrew the garage. Commissioner Ball suggested that the church might consider asking for an 18 month approval with Planning Commission review at that time. Chairman Walker stated that a 3 year approval with Planning Commission review after 1 year might be appropriate. There was a brief discussion of the suggestion offered by Commissioners Ball and Walker. Commissioner Adcock asked Mr. Straub if approval with further Commission review after 1 year would address the neighborhood's concerns. Mr. Straub responded that it would not. He again voiced his opposition to the item. Ms. Morgan again asked the Commission to deny the application. Commissioner Chachere asked Rev. Bork what the church's schedule of services is. Rev. Bork responded that church services would be Sunday morning and evening and Wednesday evening. Commissioner Chachere asked Rev. Bork if he would make an effort to keep his congregants from blocking the streets. Rev. Bork responded that he would do everything he could to keep that from happening. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated he would ask the City's Traffic Engineer to review the situation and determine if there was a problem with cars parking on both sides of the street. The question was called and a vote was taken on the application, as amended to include Planning Commission review after 1 year. The vote was 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. Due to a lack of 6 votes, either for or against the item, it was deferred to the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting. 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5973 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and informed the Committee that there was no new information to report. Without comment, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant, Rev. Larry Bork, was present. There were 3 objectors present. Staff presented the item and noted that it had been deferred from the April 4, 1995 Commission meeting. The Commission was reminded that a petition with the signatures of approximately 139 persons opposed to the church had been presented at that April meeting. Rev. Bork addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that the garage area would be used as a place of worship three times a week, Sunday morning and evening and Wednesday evening. Rev. Bork stated that the house was secluded from other homes in the area and that there was adequate on-site and street parking to accommodate the church. He stated that his small congregation utilizing only a small portion of the residence would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Rev. Bork concluded by stating he was willing to amend his application to a 2 year approval of the conditional use permit with Commission review after one year. Deborah Lindley, of 10922 Appomattox, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item. She stated that the increase in traffic caused by the church would negatively impact the neighborhood. Albert Straub, of 8806 Manassas Circle, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item. He stated that he was opposed to the use of a residence as a church. Cloie Perry Morgan, of Perry Construction Company the developer of Shenandoah Subdivision, addressed the Commission in opposition to the item. She stated that any conditions imposed on the church would be difficult to enforce. Rev. Alvie Jarratt, the denomination's District Superintendent, addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that the applicant was willing to accept all conditions recommended by staff and was willing to accept a two year approval with review after one year. Rev. Jarratt stated that the church would be relocated at the end of two years or the conditional use permit could be revoked. He stated that the only 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5973 modification to the structure would be to put a door in the garage. Rev. Jarratt stated that there were no homes on the adjacent lots and that the nearest neighbor had no objection. He stated that the home was constructed 8 years ago and that there had been no subsequent development of the Shenandoah Subdivision. He conjectured that the church would be gone from the site by the time any further development of the Subdivision occurs. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Rev. Jarratt stated that there had been no meetings between the applicant and the neighbors. A motion was made to approve the application, as amended by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval is for two years only with staff review after one year. If staff deems it necessary, the item will be brought back to the Commission at that point. 2. Approval is limited only to this small congregation with an attendance of 15-20 persons. 3. Signage is to be limited to that allowed only in residential one and two family zones. 4. No ancillary activities such as a private school or day care program are to be operated at this site. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 4 noes and 0 absent. 0 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: F FILE NO.: Z-5963 NAME: BRODIE CREEK COMMUNITY -- CONCEPTUAL LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: West of Bowman Road, with frontage on Bowman Road between Panther Branch Creek and Olds Lane, extending west to Spring Valley and north to Kanis Road, with frontage on Kanis Road between the Cooper Orbit Road intersection and the Asbury Road intersection DEVELOPER: Ms. Mary Allison ELGOR REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS 1320 Brookwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 663-2053 AREA: 695 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 223-9900 1,200± FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: R-2, MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family MF -18, C-1, and Multi -Family 0-2, & 0-3 Residential, Commercial, and Office. PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of reduced widths for street and rights-of-way from Master Street Plan standards. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a "Conceptual" Planned Residential Development for "Brodie Creek - A Community of Four Neighborhoods". The concept proposed is a "Traditional Neighborhood Development" patterned after 18th. and 19th. century villages which are designed to foster neighborliness and a sense of community. The PRD site encompasses 695 acres, and is designed to eventually have four distinct, walkable neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is to be unique, and to be defined by a green edge and a village center. Each neighborhood center is to contain a mixed-use building and a common green and park. The community is to contain approximately 1,100 home sites, with potential for 55,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 160,000 square feet of office/service space. A significant portion of the site is proposed to be retained as public open space and private conservation easement areas. The public land is to contain 2 lakes, a pond, streams, and recreational facilities. Pocket parks which function as shared May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 recreational spaces for neighbors are to be provided. All public land is to be held in trust by a home owner's association. Housing is proposed to be mixed by type and size, rather than segregated. Streets are to be narrow through streets that connect neighborhoods rather than have culs-de-sac which separate them. The lots are proposed to be small, with reduced setbacks to foster contact among neighbors. Design guidelines are to be established to set the standards for scale and proportion for homes and non-residential buildings, with architectural continuity being regulated by an architectural review committee. The "East Neighborhood" is the first phase of the development. It is the smallest, with 164 building sites. The focus of this neighborhood is the semicircular "green" surrounded by houses and one mixed use building, which is proposed to initially be the sales office. The "Community Center" is the largest neighborhood. It is to contain approximately 400 building sites, 215,000 square feet of mixed use area (55,000 square feet of retail space and 160,000 square feet of office/service/multi-family area), a church site, recreational facilities, etc. The "Community Center" is to be designed around a large park with two radial axes. A mixed use community center is to be provided at a strategic location between the two lakes. The street network is to be designed to provide easy access to the center. The "West Neighborhood" is proposed to contain approximately 220 residential building sites. The focus of this neighborhood is a mixed use center, a church site, and a neighborhood park. The "Estate Neighborhood" is to contain approximately 300 residential sites, with a neighborhood mixed-use center focusing on an elliptical green. All roads in this hilly estate section are to pass thorough the small center and filter back to the center community center. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the "Conceptual" PRD. Approval by the Board of Directors is requested for reduced widths for streets and rights-of-way. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is characterized by rolling topography, with elevations raging from 360 feet MSL to 570 feet. There are thick woods, and Brodie Creek and Panther Branch Creek run across or along the border of the land. There are other streams and a pond. There are a number of homes located on the property. K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 The existing zoning of the tract includes, predominantly, R-2 property, but also some MF -12, MF -18, 0-2, 0-3, and C-1 tracts. The surrounding lands are zoned, primarily, R-2. STAFF REPORT: Because there are issues remaining to be resolved, the applicant has requested a deferral until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The applicant has not indicated whether the reserved tracts along Bowman Rd. or Kanis Rd. are to be included or excluded from the PRD site; has not provided either site plans for the reserved tracts or dealt with their development in a phasing plan; and, has not dealt with boundary street improvements on Bowman Rd. an Kanis Rd. There are issues remaining regarding the street design; whether the proposed location of W. 36th. St. is acceptable; whether the proposed variances will be supported by staff; etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Ms. Mary Allison and Mr. John Allison, representing the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. and Mrs. Allison and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with the Committee members and the applicant's representatives the various concerns of the City Engineering Division. There was discussion on the proposed location of W. 36th. St.; on the street design which has been proposed for the integral streets; on the need for Master Street Plan improvements on the boundary streets; and on access to abutting properties. There was discussion on the reserved properties; on whether they would be included in the PRD and, if so, that they need to be dealt with in the narrative. The Committee asked the applicant's representatives if the needed exhibits and the amendments could be prepared by the cut-off time needed by staff to prepare the agenda, and whether the exhibits could be prepared which Public Works needs in order to assess whether the proposed location of W. 36th. St. could be supported. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the needed information and drawings could be prepared, but said that if they could not be presented to staff in sufficient time to meet the deadlines, a deferral would be requested. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had requested a deferral of the hearing of the requested PRD until the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, indicating that both Items "F" and "G", the Brodie Creek Conceptual PRD and the Bordie Creek Community, East Neighborhood, would be considered together. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of the Neighborhoods and Planning Department explained that the Brodie Creek Community concept is a new neighborhood development concept for Little Rock. He added that the concept is being implemented throughout the United States, and that it is an attempt to regain pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The concept, then, not only deals with the layout and organization of the subdivision, but with street and rights-of-way widths and curb radii at intersections. Mr. Lawson explained that the item had been deferred from the scheduled April 4, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for some, primarily, traffic engineering concerns to be addressed. He reported that there are some engineering concerns remaining, but that these would be worked out prior to the approval of the PRD being referred to the Board of Directors. He noted that one of the concerns involves the location, standards, and phasing of construction for 36th. Street, saying that the City staff is working with the Highway Department and MetroPlan in the resolution of the remaining issues involving 36th. Street. He recommended that the PRD be approved, but with the understanding that the issues involving 36th. Street are not being addressed at this time. Mr. David Scherer, with the City Engineering staff, reported that there had been some agreements with the Brodie Creek developer and engineer, and that the agreements are: 1. The Bowman Road alignment and dedication will be revised; that a 36 foot pavement section will be constructed for Bowman Road; and, that the bridge crossing Panther Branch will be widened to minor arterial standards. 2. In the Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood development, access to Lots 68, 69, 74, 75, 57, 2, 13, 19, 28, 43, 42, 149, and 150 will be restricted, and the access must be shown on the preliminary plat. 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 3. If it is anticipated that street grades are to exceed the maximum ordinance standards, waivers must be requested and approved. 4. Temporary erosion and/or detention control will be required until the final detention is complete. 5. Detention facilities construction are to be phased, and the watershed basins will be identified. Detention will be provided for areas in Phase I that falls outside of the watershed for the lake detention. 6. All street lighting will require approval of the type and of the proposed locations. 7. All alleys are to be private, and no garbage collection will be available from the alleys. The Ordinance standard for the pavement widths of alleys is 20 feet; the applicant proposes 16 foot pavement in a 20 foot access easement. A variance for this pavement width difference will be required. 8. Streets classified as "Local Residential Streets" are to have 27 feet of pavement width, and at Lots 4, 5, and 6, are to have 25 foot radii at the intersections. At other intersections, if a less than 25 foot radius is desired, a variance from the Ordinance standard must be requested and approved. Sight distances at intersections must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 9. Streets classified as "Skinny Ridge Streets" must have a minimum 25 foot turning radius at intersections, or a variance from the ordinance standard must be requested and approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangle clearances must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. If a proposed street section exists on a ridge with grades falling away from the pavement, then no storm drains will be required, but rolled curbs and specified discharge points with easements for outfall drainage will be required to direct street runoff. The proposed design for "Skinny Ridge Streets" is for a 20 foot pavement width, without sidewalks. If the applicant wishes to pursue this design, variances and waivers from the Ordinance standards must be requested and approved by the Board of Directors. To meet ordinance standards for "Minor Residential Streets", pavement widths must be a minimum of 24 feet for cul-de-sac streets of not more than 750 feet in length or loop streets of not more than 1,500 feet in length, and serve not more than 35 residents; otherwise, a variance is required. To meet ordinance standards for "Standard Residential Streets", pavement widths must be a minimum 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 of 27 feet and sidewalks must be provided along at least one side of the right-of-way; otherwise, a variance is required of the street pavement width and a waiver is required for the sidewalk. 10. Streets classified as "Skinny Ridge Access Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum turning radius at intersections; otherwise a variance from this Ordinance standard must be requested by the applicant and approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangles at intersections must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. The pavement widths must be 27 feet; otherwise a variance from the Ordinance standard must be requested and approved for the 24 foot pavement width proposed. 11. Streets classified as "Neighborhood Center Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangle clearances must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 12. Streets classified as "Estate Access Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. 13. Streets classified as "Neighborhood Collectors" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. Special pavement sections must be approved by Public Works, and are to be maintained by the neighborhood. They are not to be repaired or replaced for any reason by Public Works. 14. Streets classified as "Community Access Streets" must have a minimum turning radius at intersections of 25 feet (35 feet at the Bowman Road intersection); otherwise a variance must be requested and approved. Public Works recommends that this street be constructed with two 11 foot traffic lanes in each direction; however, the developer is to provide information from Earnie Peters' traffic study. This is an item to be resolved prior to the PRD being heard by the Board of Directors. 15. Streets classified as "Town Center Streets) are to be private, and constructed as parking lots with concrete aprons separating the parking lots from the public street sections. 16. For 36th. Street, the right-of-way adjacent to the Phase I development is to be dedicated with Phase I; 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5963 however, there are no specific street sections or the alignment issues considered in this application. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, added that the developer, the City staff, and he had been working on the resolution of the various issues for several weeks, and that most of the issues had been either resolved or agreed to. He indicated that some issues would be referred to the Board of Directors for approval of variances or waivers, as applicable. Chairperson Walker expressed his excitement about the new development, and called the question. The items, both Brodie Creek Community -- Conceptual Long -Form PRD (Z-5963) and Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood -- Amended Long -Form PRD (Z -5963-A), were approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 7 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: G FILE NO.: Z -5963-A NAME: BRODIE CREEK COMMUNITY, EAST NEIGHBORHOOD -- AMENDED LONG -FORM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of Bowman Road, with frontage on Bowman Road between Panther Branch Creek and Olds Lane, extending west approximately 1/2 mile. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Ms. Mary Allison Pat McGetrick ELGOR REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENTS MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 1320 Brookwood Dr. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72211 663-2053 223-9900 AREA: 75.05 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 164± FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: R-2, 0-2, & MF -18 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family residential and one mixed use building PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a PRD for development of the first phase of the "Brodie Creek -- A Community of Four Neighborhoods" conceptual PRD. The "East Neighborhood" is the is proposed to have 164 building sites. The focus of this neighborhood is the semicircular "green" surrounded by houses and one mixed use building, which is proposed to initially be the sales office. There are two "reserved" tracts along the Bowman Rd. frontage of the PRD site. The concept proposed is a "Traditional Neighborhood Development" patterned after 18th. and 19th. century villages which are designed to foster neighborliness and a sense of community. There are to be pocket parks which function as shared recreational spaces for neighbors. All public land is to be held in trust by a home owner's association. Streets are to be narrow through streets that connect neighborhoods rather than have culs-de-sac which separate them. The lots are proposed to be small, with reduced setbacks to foster contact among neighbors. Design guidelines are to be established to set the standards for scale and proportion for homes and the non-residential building, with architectural continuity being regulated by an architectural review committee. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO G (Cont.)... FILE NO.: Z -5963- A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for the PRD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is characterized by rolling topography, with elevations raging from 360 feet MSL to 390 feet. There are thick woods, and Panther Branch Creek run along the border of the land. The existing zoning of the tract includes, predominantly, R-2 property, but also some MF -18 and 0-2 tracts. The surrounding lands are zoned, primarily, R-2. STAFF REPORT: Because there are issues remaining to be resolved, the applicant has requested a deferral until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The applicant has not indicated whether the reserved tracts along Bowman Rd. are to be included or excluded from the PRD site; has not provided either site plans for the reserved tracts or dealt with their development in a phasing plan; and, has not dealt with boundary street improvements on Bowman Rd. There are issues remaining regarding the street design; whether the proposed location of W. 36th. St. is acceptable; whether the proposed variances will be supported by staff; etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested deferral until the May 16, 1995 Planning Commission hearing. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Ms. Mary Allison and Mr. John Allison, representing the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. Staff presented the proposal and reviewed with Mr. and Mrs. Allison and Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with the Committee members and the applicant's representatives the various concerns of the City Engineering Division. There was discussion on the proposed location of W. 36th. St.; on the street design which has been proposed for the integral streets; and, on the need for Master Street Plan improvements on the boundary street. There was discussion on the reserved properties; on whether they would be included in the PRD and, if so, that they need to be dealt with in the narrative. The Committee asked the applicant's K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5963-A representatives if the needed exhibits and the amendments could be prepared by the cut-off time needed by staff to prepare the agenda, and whether the exhibits could be prepared which Public works needs in order to assess whether the proposed location of W. 36th. St. could be supported. Mr. McGetrick indicated that the needed information and drawings could be prepared, but said that if they could not be presented to staff in sufficient time to meet the deadlines, a deferral would be requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had requested a deferral of the hearing of the requested PRD until the May 16, 1995 Commission meeting, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, indicating that both Items "F" and "G", the Brodie Creek Conceptual PRD and the Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood, would be considered together. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of the Neighborhoods and Planning Department explained that the Brodie Creek Community concept is a new neighborhood development concept for Little Rock. He added that the concept is being implemented throughout the United States, and that it is an attempt to regain pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The concept, then, not only deals with the layout and organization of the subdivision, but with street and rights-of-way widths and curb radii at intersections. Mr. Lawson explained that the item had been deferred from the scheduled April 4, 1995 Planning Commission meeting in order for some, primarily, traffic engineering concerns to be addressed. He reported that there are some engineering concerns remaining, but that these would be worked out prior to the approval of the PRD being referred to the Board of Directors. He noted that one of the concerns involves the location, standards, and phasing of construction for 36th. Street, saying that the City staff is working with the Highway Department and MetroPlan in the resolution of the remaining issues involving 36th. Street. He recommended that the PRD be approved, but with the understanding that the issues involving 36th. Street are not being addressed at this time. Mr. David Scherer, with the City Engineering staff, reported that there had been some agreements with the Brodie Creek developer and engineer, and that the agreements are: 1. The Bowman Road alignment and dedication will be revised; that a 36 foot pavement section will be constructed for Bowman Road; and, that the bridge fl. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5963-A crossing Panther Branch will be widened to minor arterial standards. 2. In the Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood development, access to Lots 68, 69, 74, 75, 57, 2, 13, 19, 28, 43, 42, 149, and 150 will be restricted, and the access must be shown on the preliminary plat. 3. If it is anticipated that street grades are to exceed the maximum ordinance standards, waivers must be requested and approved. 4. Temporary erosion and/or detention control will be required until the final detention is complete. 5. Detention facilities construction are to be phased, and the watershed basins will be identified. Detention will be provided for areas in Phase I that falls outside of the watershed for the lake detention. 6. All street lighting will require approval of the type and of the proposed locations. 7. All alleys are to be private, and no garbage collection will be available from the alleys. The Ordinance standard for the pavement widths of alleys is 20 feet; the applicant proposes 16 foot pavement in a 20 foot access easement. A variance for this pavement width difference will be required. 8. Streets classified as "Local Residential Streets" are to have 27 feet of pavement width, and at Lots 4, 5, and 6, are to have 25 foot radii at the intersections. At other intersections, if a less than 25 foot radius is desired, a variance from the Ordinance standard must be requested and approved. Sight distances at intersections must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 9. Streets classified as "Skinny Ridge Streets" must have a minimum 25 foot turning radius at intersections, or a variance from the ordinance standard must be requested and approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangle clearances must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. If a proposed street section exists on a ridge with grades falling away from the pavement, then no storm drains will be required, but rolled curbs and specified discharge points with easements for outfall drainage will be required to direct street runoff. The proposed design for "Skinny Ridge Streets" is for a 20 foot pavement width, without sidewalks. If the applicant wishes to pursue this design, variances and waivers from the Ordinance standards must be requested and 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5963-A approved by the Board of Directors. To meet ordinance standards for "Minor Residential Streets", pavement widths must be a minimum of 24 feet for cul-de-sac streets of not more than 750 feet in length or loop streets of not more than 1,500 feet in length, and serve not more than 35 residents; otherwise, a variance is required. To meet ordinance standards for "Standard Residential Streets", pavement widths must be a minimum of 27 feet and sidewalks must be provided along at least one side of the right-of-way; otherwise, a variance is required of the street pavement width and a waiver is required for the sidewalk. 10. Streets classified as "Skinny Ridge Access Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum turning radius at intersections; otherwise a variance from this Ordinance standard must be requested by the applicant and approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangles at intersections must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. The pavement widths must be 27 feet; otherwise a variance from the Ordinance standard must be requested and approved for the 24 foot pavement width proposed. 11. Streets classified as "Neighborhood Center Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. Sight triangle clearances must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. 12. Streets classified as "Estate Access Streets" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. 13. Streets classified as "Neighborhood Collectors" must have a 25 foot minimum curb radius; otherwise a variance of the Ordinance standard must be approved by the Board of Directors. Special pavement sections must be approved by Public works, and are to be maintained by the neighborhood. They are not to be repaired or replaced for any reason by Public Works. 14. Streets classified as "Community Access Streets" must have a minimum turning radius at intersections of 25 feet (35 feet at the Bowman Road intersection); otherwise a variance must be requested and approved. Public Works recommends that this street be constructed with two 11 foot traffic lanes in each direction; however, the developer is to provide information from Earnie Peters' traffic study. This is an item to be resolved prior to the PRD being heard by the Board of Directors. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5963-A 15. Streets classified as "Town Center Streets) are to be private, and constructed as parking lots with concrete aprons separating the parking lots from the public street sections. 16. For 36th. Street, the right-of-way adjacent to the Phase I development is to be dedicated with Phase I; however, there are no specific street sections or the alignment issues considered in this application. Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, added that the developer, the City staff, and he had been working on the resolution of the various issues for several weeks, and that most of the issues had been either resolved or agreed to. He indicated that some issues would be referred to the Board of Directors for approval of variances or waivers, as applicable. Chairperson Walker expressed his excitement about the new development, and called the question. The items, both Brodie Creek Community -- Conceptual Long -Form PRD (Z-5963) and Brodie Creek Community, East Neighborhood -- Amended Long -Form PRD (Z -5963-A), were approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 0 � r May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S -45-A-17 NAME: OTTER CREEK COMMUNITY, LOTS 850, 851,& 852, PHASE VIII -- RE -PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Otter Creek Parkway and Fawn Tree Dr., in the Otter Creek Community. ENGINEER• Tommy Hodges Pat McGetrick STAGECOACH DEVELOPMENT MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 14000 Otter Creek Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 722111 455-5557 223-9900 AREA: 1.38 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential 1) Approval of a variance of the lot width to depth ratio for lots 851 and 852; and, 2) Approval of a waiver of the required sidewalk along the Fawn Tree Dr. frontage of the site. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a subdivision of a 1.38 acre tract which, the applicant indicates, had been retained as an undivided tract from the Phase I development phase of the Otter Creek Community. The tract had been approved as a tract in the original preliminary plat for Phase I; therefore, at this time, the applicant has submitted the application in the form of a 3 -lot final plat. The boundary streets are in place; however, there are no sidewalks constructed along the two boundary street frontages. The applicant proposes to construct the sidewalk along the Otter Creek Parkway frontage, but requests a waiver of the sidewalk requirement along Fawn Tree Dr. The Otter Creek Community subdivision has a pedestrian path system which connects the various blocks, reports the applicant, and there is a pathway in a common area abutting the three lots along their west/rear property line. The applicant proposes the substitution of the pedestrian path abutting the lots at the rear for construction of a short section of sidewalk along Fawn Tree Dr., saying that this i I May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -45-A-17 pathway system provides any needed pedestrian access way. Because two of the lots exceed the maximum lot width to depth ratio permitted by the regulations, a variance of this regulation is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a three -lot subdivision of a tract which, the applicant indicates, was shown in a previously approved preliminary plat. Review and a recommendation for approval of two matters which will require Board of Directors approval are requested: 1) a variance of the lot width to depth ratio restriction; and 2) a waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk along the Fawn Tree Dr. frontage of the site, since there is a pedestrian path/circulation system provided for in the subdivision, and which abuts the lots. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The site and all surrounding land are zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) additional information is required on the plat in order for the Final Plat to be approved; 2) sidewalks and handicap ramps are required on both boundary streets; and, 3) a stormwater detention analysis will be required. Water Works has no objection to the proposed preliminary plat. Wastewater comments that sewer is available, and that there will be no adverse effect. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-45-A-17 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning Department files do not include a file of a preliminary plat in which the tract in question is shown. Furnish proof that the tract was approved as a tract in a previously approved preliminary plats otherwise, the information required for a preliminary plat must be submitted. Sec. 31-231(b) states that "No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide.... Lot width shall be measured at the building line...." Lots 851 & 852 are approximately 68 feet wide at the building line; therefore the lots cannot be more than 204' deep. Both Lots 851 & 852 exceed this depth. A variance from this restriction is necessary. Sec. 31-209 requires a sidewalk to be constructed along at least one side of residential and residential collector streets. There are no sidewalks on the opposite side of either boundary street; so, the Ordinance will require sidewalks to be constructed along both frontages. E. ANALYSIS• Assuming that, indeed, the tract was included in a previous preliminary plat, the proposed re -plat is appropriately filed. Regarding the lot width to depth ratio matter, the applicant has the options: increasing the lot width (by changing the request to a two -lot plat in lieu of a three -lot plat); decreasing the lot depth by dedicating the excessive depth amount to the open space easement abutting the property on the west; or, seeking the variance. The applicant has chosen to seek a variance, not wanting to pursue either of the other two courses. The applicant proposes to construct the required sidewalk along the Otter Creek Parkway frontage, but requests a waiver of the required sidewalk along Fawn Tree Dr. There is, states the applicant, a pedestrian circulation system/pathway system provided for in the subdivision, and, maintains the applicant, this existing system provides the needed pedestrian circulation, since a pathway abuts the three lots along the west/rear property line. The applicant states that a short section of sidewalk along the Fawn Tree Dr. frontage of the site would go nowhere, connect with nothing, and not provided any needed pedestrian purpose. Documentation of this pedestrian pathway system needs to be 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-45-A-17 furnished to the Public Works staff, and the Public Works staff needs to review the plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the three lot plat, of the variance of the lot width to depth ratio. If the pedestrian pathway system adequately addresses the pedestrian circulation needs, as reported to the Commission by the Public Works staff, the waiver of the sidewalk along the Fawn Tree Dr. frontage of the site is also recommended for approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the request and Mr. McGetrick reviewed with the Committee members the proposal. The Committee members questioned Mr. McGetrick on the items contained in the discussion outline, and Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would address the staff concerns. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. Staff recommended that the requested lot width to depth ratio be approved, and that the requested waiver of the sidewalk along the Fawn Tree Dr. frontage of the site be approved, subject to the applicant furnishing the Public Works staff an overall path plan for the subdivision which shows how the pedestrian circulation concern is addressed for the three lots. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the requested variance and waiver, subject to the conditions cited. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.• 2 FILE NO.: S -868 -II NAME: CHENAL VALLEY OFFICE PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Chenal Valley Dr. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Jack McCray Joe White DELTIC FARM & TIMBER CO., IND. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. #7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 821-5555 374-1666 AREA: 48.13 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 1,865 ZONING: 0-2 PROPOSED USES: Office and Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the subdivision of a 48.13 acre tract into a four -lot office and commercial subdivision, and the extension of an 1,865 foot public street into the subdivision. The site is proposed to include a lake, and this lake, as well as being developed as a water feature, will act as a stormwater detention area for the subdivision and for the land "up -stream". The lake - detention area is to be a separate tract from the abutting lots. The Chenal Parkway, Chenal Valley Dr. and north boundary of the property are proposed to have a buffer along the property line of the subdivision, (again, designated as tracts),ranging in width of from 100 feet along Chenal Parkway, 30 feet along Chenal valley Dr., and a minimum of 50 feet along the north property line (expanding to 100 feet at the mid -point along the north property line). The proposed internal street is to be extended to the east boundary of the subdivision so that it can be extended eastward in the future to connect with the future outer loop road which is to be located approximately 750 feet to the east. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for a four -lot office and commercial subdivision. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -868 -II B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The current zoning of the site is 0-2, and is part of a larger 0-2 zoned district which includes the land to the north and south of the proposed subdivision site. The land to the northeast is zoned R-2. Across Chenal Parkway is an MF -6 zoned tract. Across Chenal Valley Dr. to the west is a Little Rock Fire Station, which is on a lot in an office and commercial subdivision which was previously approved. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) clarification of some issues regarding the lake and dams, the proposed street system design, etc. are required; 2) sidewalks must be provided on both sides of the interior street and along Chenal Valley Dr.; 3) an analysis must be provided on how this site fits in with the walk/bath path for Chenal Parkway; 3) variances must be requested if grades on streets are to exceed maximum allowed by Ordinance; 4) an engineering stability analysis will be required on the dams; 5) erosion control plan and a site grading plan must be provided, and all City, state, and federal permits must be obtained before any construction or clearing is begun; 6) the three-way intersection which is proposed must be combined into one at Chenal Valley Dr.; and, 7) the required stormwater detention analysis must be provided. Water Works comments that, in addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $300 per acre applies. On-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement along the east side of Chenal Valley Dr. and the south side of the interior street. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not furnished comments. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Parks and Recreation Department commented that the development provides an opportunity to enhance pedestrian 2 i May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -868 -II and bicycle linkages, and that Parks encourages the developer provide a bikeway through the drainage easement. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that, in addition to the information supplied with the application, the following information is required to be furnished: 1) Sec. 31-87 specifies that the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed record book and page number, or instrument number are to be supplied. 2) Sec. 31-89 requires that the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number be shown. "Abutting" includes properties across the street from the site. There is a platted subdivision to the west, and the name of this subdivision is not shown. This section also requires that, on commercial subdivisions, the names of all abutting property owners are to be shown. It is presumed that Deltic Farm & Timber Co. is the sole owner, except for the City of Little Rock which owns the fire station which is located across Chenal Valley Dr. to the west. 3) Sec. 31-87 specifies that the linear feet in streets, the average size of lots and the minimum lot size, the source of water and means of wastewater, and existing and proposed covenants and restrictions are to be indicated. 4) Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed design for streets (with proposed street names), with sidewalks shown, are to be indicated. 5) Sec. 31-89 requires that "natural features" (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and "cultural features" (existing and plated streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision be shown. This section also requires that on all watercourses entering the tract, the drainage area above the point of entry shall be noted. 6) Sec. 31-89 requires that all monuments are to be shown, and that adequate physical descriptions of the monuments be noted. 3 l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -868 -II 7) Sec. 31-89 requires that the zoning classifications within the plat area and of abutting areas are to be shown. 8) Sec. 31-89 requires that the survey be filed with the office of the State Surveyor. 9) Sec. 31-89 requires that a phasing plan be stipulated. There is no indication of the phasing of this development. 10) Sec. 31-91 requires that the certifications of preliminary engineering and surveying accuracy be executed. 11) Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be filed with the application 12) Sec. 31-202 requires that, in the case of temporary dead-end streets which are stub streets designed to provide future connection with unsubdivided adjacent areas, the Planning Commission may require a temporary easement for a turn -around. A sign is also to be provided to indicate that the street is eventually to be continued. 13) Sec. 31-201 prohibits the developer from retaining a parcel of land lying between a newly created "boundary street" and a former property line, the purpose of which would be to deny access by abutting owners. The street along the north boundary of Lot 4 is a boundary street, and there is a narrow tract left over to the north of the boundary street. This tract cannot be retained for "the purpose of denying) access to abutting owners". E. ANALYSIS: The Public Works staff will require a change in the intersection of the new interior roadway and Chenal Valley Dr. The applicant has indicated that he will consult with the Traffic Engineering staff. The applicant has indicated that there is an adopted pedestrian path system for Chenal Valley, and that he will work with the Public Works staff regarding the requirements for sidewalks along Chenal Parkway. The Neighborhoods and Planning comments contain deficiencies which can easily be supplied, and no not prohibit the preliminary plat from being approved. The deficiencies must be included, however, on the file copy of the plat. 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5 -868 -II The matter of phasing of the development needs to be addressed. Regarding the shallow tract which separates the north boundary street from the north property line, the applicant states that, since the applicant for this subdivision is also the owner of the land to the north, there is no issue involving denying access from the abutting land. The owner wishes, says the applicant, to continue the landscaping buffer around the entire perimeter of the subdivision, and this tract is part of that buffer. With this explanation, the prohibition cited in Sec. 31-201 is moot. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Joe White, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat, and reviewed with Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline. Since the plan which was submitted contained a private interior street, this issue produced the majority of the discussion. Staff related that a through street is ineligible to be a private street. Mr. White responded that the developer would amend the application to change the interior street to a public street. The issue of the shallow tract along the north boundary of the site was discussed, and Mr. White pointed out that the abutting land is owned by the applicant, thus making the access issue to abutting lands moot. The Committee reviewed with Mr. White the deficiencies of the submittal, and Mr. White responded that he would make the needed changes and supply the information required. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 5 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2a FILE NO.: 5-1056-A NAME: CWC SUBDIVISION -- LOT 2 RE -PLAT LOCATION: On the south side of the I-30 frontage road, north of Baseline Road, approximately 750 feet east of the I-30 frontage road and Baseline Road intersection. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Mike Coulson Robert Brown COULSON, WHITE, COULSON DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. AN ARKANSAS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 10809 Executive Center Dr., 1434-38 Pike Ave. Suite 210 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Little Rock, AR 72205 376-4222 221-7880 AREA: 2.83 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-4 PROPOSED USES: Commercial PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The proposed subdivision is a replat of Lot 2 of a 2 -lot plat entitled the "CWC Subdivision". The tract was recently approved for a lot split by staff in order for the McDonalds restaurant to be constructed on Lot 1. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a four -lot re -plat of the 2.83 acre Lot 2 of the CWC Subdivision. The re -plat is to have frontages on both Baseline Rd. and on the I-30 access road, with two lots having frontage on each of the streets. A common access easement is proposed to be located along the north -south interior lot lines, and a common drive approach from the public streets is to be provided at this access easement for a shared access to the lots. This access easement is also to provide access to the proposed fire hydrant which is to be located at the interior "four corners" of the subdivision. The applicant states that all required right-of-way was dedicated as part of a re -zoning action approved previously, and that no street improvements are required or proposed. No variances are proposed. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2a (Cont.) FILE NO.: S -1056-A A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a re - plat. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is being cleared of buildings which formerly occupied the site. The site is zoned C-4, and is part of a recent rezoning to C-4 involving not only the subject site, but the Lot 1 area to the west. Property to the east is zoned I-2. To the south, for approximately the west two-thirds of the frontage along Baseline Rd., is C-3 property. The east one-third of the frontage along Baseline Rd. is R-2 property. An OS strip separates the two zoning districts. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the plan must be submitted to AHTD for approval; 2) the required stormwater detention analysis must be provided; 3) common access must be provided to each roadway from adjacent parcels; 4) a grading permit is required before any construction; 5) the floodplain certification must be signed; and, 6) an analysis for the sizing of culverts crossing driveways must be provided. Water Works comments that, in addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $150/acre applies. The main to be tapped is out in Baseline Rd. Approval of AHTD will be required to tap this main. Access to the fire hydrant from all lots must be provided. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 10, easement will be required along the west property line. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department did not furnish comments. K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 2a (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1056-A D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that Sec. 31- 287 requires that, where a commercial subdivision has in excess of 300' of frontage on an arterial street or major thoroughfare, provisions for internal circulation are to be required. Show the location of proposed ingress/egress easements at common lot lines. E. ANALYSIS• There are only minor deficiencies noted in the submittal information and preliminary plat. The plat substantially meets the Ordinance requirements. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Mike Coulson, the applicant, and Mr. Robert Brown, with DCI, the project engineering firm, were present. Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat. Mr. Brown reviewed the discussion outline, and responded to the comments individually. The Public Works and Water Utilities comment regarding the need for a common access easement along the north -south interior lot lines was discussed, and Mr. Brown responded that this would be provided. The Public Works comment regarding designating a common drive approach to serve each of the lots facing the two public roadways was discussed. Mr. Brown responded that these would be provided. The Committee members reviewed with Mr. Brown the proposed plat and the comments contained in the discussion outline, and Mr. Brown indicated that all items contained in the discussion outline would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the plat to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-1058 NAME: DEAN WISDOM SUBDIVISION -- LOTS 16R, 17R, & 18R RE -PLAT LOCATION: At the northwest corner of Arch Street Pike and West Grinde Rd., outside the City Limits. DEVELOPER: Dean Wisdom 13124 Arch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 888-1778 AREA: 3.24 ACRES ZONING: R-2 Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 28 CENSUS TRACT: 40.03 ENGINEER• Ed Fryar ED FRYAR ENGINEERING 54 Kings Park Little Rock, AR 72205 225-7597 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the requirement to provide Master Street Plan improvements along both the Arch Street Pike and W. Grinde Rd. frontages of the plat area. BACKGROUND: The proposed subdivision is a re -plat of Lots 1R and 2R of a 3 - lot subdivision, entitled the "Dean wisdom Subdivision", approved by the Planning Commission in 1977 and filed with the Circuit Clerk and Recorder on September 14, 1977. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 3 -lot re -plat of 2 lots of the Dean Wisdom Subdivision. The northern -most lot involves approximately one-half of the original Lot 2R, and contains approximately 1.62 acres. This lot is designated as Lot 16R in the new subdivision. Access to this lot was (in the originally approved subdivision) and is (in the proposed re -plat) by way of a 50 foot wide pipestem with frontage on Arch Street Pike. The remainder of the original Lot 2R, plus a portion of the original Lot 1R makes up the new Lot 17R. This new lot is 1.02 acres in size and has its required frontage on W. Grinde Rd. Two-thirds of the original Lot 1R, at the corner of W. Grinde Rd. and Arch Street Pike form the new Lot 18R. This lot is a 0.55 acre lot, and has frontages on both boundary streets, W. Grinde Rd. and Arch Street Pike. Both boundary streets are improved County roadways, and the l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1058 applicant does not propose any street improvements to either road. A waiver of the Master Street Plan requirements, then, is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors of the Master Street Plan improvements for Arch Street Pike and for W. Grinde Rd. are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The applicant's homesite occupies the northern -most lot, with access to this homesite by way of the pipestem. The remainder of the tract is undeveloped and wooded. The existing zoning of the site, plus all surrounding lands, is R-2. The area is outside the City Limits. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the preliminary plat has some technical deficiencies which need to be addressed; 2) AHTD must be contacted before any work is done in the right-of-way; and, 3) the applicant should contact the Pulaski County Floodplain Administrator prior to approval from the City. Water Works comments that, in addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $100/acre applies. Wastewater comments that the proposed development is outside the Wastewater service boundary. No sewer is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnished comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that the applicant has requested a waiver of Boundary Street improvements, and a recommendation on this requested waiver should be made. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 3 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1058 E. ANALYSIS• The re -plat meets the Ordinance requirements, except for the requirement to provide Master Street Plan improvements. The area is approximately 6 miles south of where Arch Street Pike leaves the City Limits at I-30, and is approximately 2.5 miles south of the nearest City Limits line. The likelihood of the City or County re -building the streets in the area in the future is remote. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the re -plat, and of the requested waiver of Master Street Plan improvements. (Dedication of the required right-of-way should not be waived.) SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Dean Wisdom, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the request, and the staff and Committee members reviewed with Mr. Wisdom the comments contained in the discussion outline. Staff related that the City files do not include a record of the original subdivision reported by the applicant as being on record. Mr. Wisdom responded that he had a reproducible of the filed copy, and would provide a copy of this recorded subdivision plat to staff. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat request to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and of the requested waiver of Master Street Plan improvements for the boundary streets. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and the preliminary plat was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: 5-1065 NAME: CHENONCEAU COMMERCIAL PARK -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Cantrell Rd. and Chenonceau Blvd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Jack McCray Joe White DELTIC FARM & TIMBER CO., INC. WHITE -RATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. #7 Chenal Club Circle 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72201 821-5555 374-1666 AREA: 16.66 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 500 ZONING: 0-3 & C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Office & Commercial The applicant proposes a commercial and office subdivision on a 16.66 acre tract. The site is located with frontages on both Cantrell Rd. and Chenonceau Blvd., so no boundary street improvements are needed or to be provided. One interior cul-de- sac street, approximately 500 feet in length, is proposed. Lots range in size of from 0.8 acre to 2.14 acres, with the average lot size being 1.44 acres. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The northern two-thirds of the site is zoned C-3; the southern one-third is zoned 0-2. The land to the east, south, and southwest is all zoned R-2. Across Chenonceau Blvd. to the west is an MF -18 zoned tract. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1065 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the preliminary plat has some technical deficiencies which need to be addressed; 2) access to Lot 5 should be taken from Chenonceau Court, and common drives should be provided for Lots 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, with access to Lot 10 being provided at the southeast corner of the lot; 3) street plans must be provided and sidewalks will be required on both sides; 4) a stormwater detention analysis and easement for the outfall drainage onto adjacent property must be provided; and, 5) provide erosion control plan and get City and State permits prior to any site work. Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required in order to provide service to some lots. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require an easement along the north and west property lines, including along all sides of the cul-de-sac. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Parks and Recreation Department comments that the use of a bikeway along Chenonceau Blvd. to link Chenal development to the future bikeway along the Little Maumelle and Arkansas Rivers is encouraged. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: 1) Sec. 31-87 requires that the name and address of the owner of record, with the source of title, giving deed record book and page number or instrument number, be shown. These are not indicated. 2) Sec. 31-87 requires that the average and minimum lot sizes be reported; they are not. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1065 3) Sec. 31-87 requires that any existing and the proposed covenants and resurrections be indicated. This is not available. 4) Sec. 31-87 requires that the source of water supply and the means of wastewater be indicated. This is not shown. 5) Sec. 31-89 requires that contours be shown, and be at 2' intervals. Contours are shown, but there is no indication of their interval or what elevation they represent. 6) Sec. 31-89 requires that "natural features" (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and "cultural features" (existing and plated streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision be shown. This section also requires that on all watercourses entering the tract, the drainage area above the point of entry shall be noted. These requirements have not met. 7) Sec. 31-89 requires a preliminary storm drainage plan be provided. This has not been submitted. 8) Sec. 31-89 requires the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument umber be shown, and for commercial subdivision the owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision be indicated. "Abutting" and "contiguous" include property across streets. Ownerships of platted lots to the south need to be shown. Ownership and/or plat information to the north needs to be shown. 9) Sec. 31-89 requires that adequate physical descriptions of all monuments is to be shown, indicating the size, type of materials, and construction of monuments. Monuments are not designated. 10) Sec. 31-89 requires that the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas are to be show. This has not been shown. 11) Sec. 31-89 requires that the certification be executed indicating that the survey has been filed M May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1065 with the office of the State Surveyor. This has not been done. 12) Sec. 31-89 requires that a phasing plan, if development is to be phased, be indicated. Is the entire development to be accomplished in one phase? 13) Sec. 31-91 requires the certificates of preliminary engineering and surveying accuracy be executed. 14) Sec. 31-93 requires a preliminary Bill of Assurance be submitted. This has not been done. 15) Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed design for streets, and showing sidewalks are to be indicated. Sec. 31-209 and 31-282 require sidewalks on both sides of commercial streets. Sidewalks will be required along Chenonceau Blvd. and Chenonceau Ct. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies noted above are easily provided by the project engineer, and can be added prior to staff approving the file copy of the preliminary plat. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant's engineer completing the submittal requirements. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Joe White, with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat to the Committee, and the Committee reviewed with staff and Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with Mr. White its comments regarding stormwater detention and the requirement that an easement be provided for the outfall from stormwater from the site. Mr. White responded that the matter would be investigated, and that further consultation would be needed. Mr. White related that the remaining issues raised by staff would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the proposed plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. 0 r May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1065 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The preliminary plat was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 5 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 FILE NO.: 5-1067 NAME: PEBBLE BEACH ESTATES -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: West of Hinson Rd., south of Pebble Beach Dr., beyond the present end of Montvale Dr. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• HANOVER PROPERTIES Pat McGetrick c/o Jeff Fuller MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 900 S. Shackleford Rd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 722111 224-5700 1223-9900 AREA: 39.87 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 116 FT. NEW STREET: 6300 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The proposed subdivision is a 39.87 acre tract out of the 117 acre PRD site approved in 1985 for the First Baptist Church --- Long-Form PRD. The PRD was a multi -use project involving construction of a church sanctuary and ancillary actives facilities to include athletic facilities and an amphitheater; water features; retirement housing facilities; a retreat center; etc. One of the requirements of that PRD development was that access to the abutting residential neighborhoods was to be restricted; roadways extending to the property lines of the residential neighborhoods were not to be extended into the PRD site. Buffering of the PRD site from the residential neighborhoods was to be provided. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the subdivision into 116 single-family lots of a 39.87 acre tract. New streets totaling 7,300 feet in length are to be constructed. Access to the site is proposed to be provided, initially, by an extension of the existing Montvale Dr. from the Hickory Ridge, Phase I Subdivision. Eventually, two streets are proposed to be extended to the east boundary of the tract, and will be extended eastward into the future development area to the east. A section of Beckenham Rd. will run from the south boundary of the tract across the southwest corner of the { May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1067 tract, and exit on the west boundary of the tract. No variances are proposed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval of a preliminary plat by the Planning Commission is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the tract is PRD. The remainder of the PRD site lies to the east of the tract. The land to the north, south, and west is zoned R-2, with single-family residential development abutting the tract to the north. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the preliminary plat has some technical deficiencies which must be addressed; 2) street plans must be submitted for review; 3) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; 4) a collector street must be provided to the east; 5) before any construction begins, provide erosion control plan and get City and State permits; 6) revise the intersection nearest Beckenham to be 900; 7) curves #1 and #2 should have minimum 150' radii (This street is longer than 1500', thus it is not a minor residential street.); and, 8) provide a phasing plan. Water Works comments that water main extensions will be required. A portion of the project will have an acreage charge. Contact Water Works for information on the area affected. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnish comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1067 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: 1) Sec. 31-86 requires that the name and address of the owner of record, including the source of title, be provided. This has not been done. 2) Sec. 31-86 requires that the average and minimum lot sizes be indicated. The minimum lot size(s) is/are not provided. 3) Sec. 31-86 requires that any existing and the proposed covenants and restrictions be reported. This has not been done. 4) Sec. 31-89 requires that the preliminary plat show the proposed design of the streets, including the location of sidewalks. Denote the widths of proposed streets and indicate the location of sidewalks. 5) Sec. 31-89 requires that "natural features" (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and "cultural features" (existing and plated streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision be shown. This section also requires that on all watercourses entering the tract, the drainage area above the point of entry shall be noted. These requirements have not met. 6) Sec. 31-89 requiems a preliminary storm drainage plan to be furnished. This has not been done. 7) Sec. 31-89 requires that the names of all recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with book and page number or instrument number, be shown, and, on unplatted land, the names of all owners be shown. This information is incomplete. 8) Sec. 31-89 requires that the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting lands be shown. This information is not shown. 9) Sec. 31-89 requires that the survey be filed with the State Surveyor. This certification has not been executed. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1067 10) Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed phasing of the development be indicated. Is the entire development to be developed as one phase? 11) Sec. 31-89 requires that proposed PAGIS monuments be indicted. These have not been shown. 12) There are lots shown which are remnants of the original platted subdivision. These cannot be platted as part of the new subdivision. New streets cannot be dedicated and constructed which include these lots. E. ANALYSIS• The preliminary plat which has been submitted has some critical issues which must be resolved. Not only are there omissions in the submittal information, which can be provided by the project engineer, but there are issues regarding the design of the subdivision to accommodate the remnant lots from the past. There are also design issues regarding the alignment of street intersections. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this item, pending resolution of the issues cited. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the proposed project, and Mr. McGetrick indicated to the Committee that he had reviewed the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed with Mr. McGetrick its comments, indicating that, preferably, the southern -most street along the east property line should be a collector street, and be planned to extend to Hinson Rd. Public Works also discussed its comments regarding the needed changes in the alignment of streets and intersections. Staff discussed the indicated remnant lots from a previously platted subdivision which are within the boundary of the new subdivision, and which are shown within proposed rights-of-way or included in lot areas. Staff pointed out that these lots cannot be left within the street rights-of-way, and Mr. McGetrick indicated that, either the lots would be acquired, or the design would be changed to move the streets to not conflict with these lots' locations. Staff suggested that the design be modified to locate unobtainable lots exclusively within the bounds of lot lines in the new subdivision, and that then these new lots be excluded 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1067 from any final plat until title can be obtained of these lots from the previous subdivision. Following this discussion, the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved; that the applicant had furnished a revised preliminary plat which addressed all concerns cited. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The preliminary plat was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 5 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -5570 - NAME: MOORE MORTGAGE CO. -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the north side of Cantrell Rd., approximately 750 feet east of the Sam Peck Rd. intersection DEVELOPER: MOORE MORTGAGE CO. 10110 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72205 227-5700 AREA: 1.40 ACRES ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: 0-1, Quite Office District Uses PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to remodel an existing single -story residence, located on a 1.4 acre tract, and use the building for uses permitted by right in the 0-1, Quite Office District. The existing structure includes a 2 -car carport, the west wall of which is located on the west property line of the tract. The driveway extends from the street to this carport. Head -in parking is proposed to be added in front of the structure and off the driveway, with four additional parking spaces proposed to be provided. The required 40 foot front landscaping buffer is to be provided, as is the required landscaping buffer at the east, rear, and west property lines, except, obviously, at the area where the structure extends to the property line. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a PD -O to permit uses on the subject property which are uses permitted by right in the 0-1 zoning district. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is a single -story residence located on the property. A 16 foot wide driveway runs along the west property line f May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5570-A and extends from Cantrell Rd. to the 2 -car carport located within the structure which is located on the west property line. The drive approach off Cantrell Rd. is a shared approach with the abutting property to the west. The tract to the west is vacant, as is the property to the east. Across Cantrell Rd. is a contractors' office building. The existing zoning is R-2. The R-2 zoning district extends to all properties abutting the site, including across Cantrell Rd. to the south. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) there are some technical requirements which need clarification on the site plan; 2) plans are to submitted to the AHTD for approval; 3) right-of-way to provide 55 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Cantrell Rd is to be dedicated; 4) a sidewalk is to be constructed along the frontage of the site; 5) the required stormwater detention analysis is to be furnished; 6) a grading permit may be required. Water Works has no objection to the proposed development. Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnish comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 5 foot easement will be required along all four sides of the perimeter of the site. (Note that there is a conflict with the existing building which must be addressed with Southwestern Bell.) Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments: 1) Sec. 36-456 requires that a statement describing the character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made, be provided. This has not been done. This "Project Narrative" is essential. This letter must include a complete description of the use(s) requested, with the floor area for each type use. E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5570-A 2) Sec. 36-456 requires that the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the site be addressed. This requirement has not been met. 3) There is a shared drive approach off Cantrell Rd., and the site plan does not indicate that there is an access easement to provide for the mutual use of the drive approach by both property owners who share this approach. A cross -access easement needs to be provided. 4) The site plan does not locate proposed signage, nor, since there is not project narrative, is there either a request for signage or a request for any certain size of sign. 5) Sec. 36-502(2)g. provides that, for business and professional office uses, one parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area to be provided. The existing structure contains 1766 square feet; therefore, 5 parking spaces are required. Six spaces (four new and two existing in the carport) are provided. 6) Landscape review comments that the existing drive projects over the 25' wide landscape buffer required along the west property line if this were a new project. A 61 high opaque screen, either a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings, are required along the east and west property lines to screen on-site business activity from the adjacent residentially zoned properties. A berm, wall, or dense evergreen plantings will be required to provide screening on the parking lot from Cantrell Rd. One tree per 20' will be required within the landscape buffer parallel with Cantrell Rd. A sprinkler system to water landscaped areas is required. A 31 wide building landscape strip between the public parking area and the building should be provided. The width of the propose parking lot should be increased by 41 to provide the 40' required by ordinance. 7) The Planning Staff comments that the area is in the River Mountain planning district, and the adopted land use plan indicates that the subject tract is in the transition zone. For sites less than two acres, zoning requests must be pursued using the Planned District process. Office uses, as proposed, are in conformance with the adopted plan. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5570-A E. ANALYSIS• The site is in a sparsely developed area along Cantrell Rd. There is a C-3 use (a contractors' office) across the street from the site. The use of the residential structure for office uses, in an area which is developing as office and multi -family uses in conformance with the Land Use Plan, is appropriate. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed PD -0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the proposed site plan. The Public works staff and Neighborhoods and Planning staff outlined their comments contained in the discussion outline. There was a discussion regarding the shared drive access straddling the west property line, and shared with the tract to the west. Mr. McGetrick said that he would investigate whether there was a cross -access easement established when the drive approach was constructed. He related that the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department had constructed the drive approach when Cantrell Rd. was re -constructed. There was a discussion regarding the adequacy of the proposed number of parking spaces; however, it was determined that the number of spaces provided exceeds the minimum number of spaces required by the ordinance. It was also pointed out that the depth of the parking and the maneuvering space needed to comply with the regulations. Landscape review noted the need for providing the required landscape buffering along the Cantrell Rd. frontage of the site. The committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and that staff recommended approval of the PD -0. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: Z -2245-D NAME: WEST MARKHAM AUTO MALL -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the south side of W. Markham St., approximately 0.4 mile west of Shackleford Rd. DEVELOPER: Dwight Linkous REAL ESTATE CENTRAL 11715 Rainwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 224-3400 AREA: 2.2583 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD EXISTING USES: Mall for Auto Parts and Supplies PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: The "West Markham Auto Mall -- Short -Form PCD" (Z -2245-C) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1987. The ordinance establishing the PCD was approved by the Board of Directors on September 15, 1987, Ordinance No. 15,345. There were a number of conditions placed on the approval, one of which was that the south-facing/rear overhead doors facing the residential neighborhood to the south have "automatic closer devices with a maximum three minute open time". Zoning Enforcement has noted that this time limitation is not being adhered to. The choices of the property owner, then, are to adhere to the time limitation condition imposed in the approval of the PCD or to seek an amendment to the approval of the PCD to permit the doors to remain open. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an amendment to the originally approved PCD to permit the condition imposed which requires the south facing overhead doors to remain open no longer than three minutes to be rescinded, and that no limitation be imposed on these overhead doors remaining open. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2245-D A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval of the amended PCD is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the location of an auto mall. According to the originally approved PCD minute record, the auto mall was to "provide a specialty shopping center, which provides in one location, several high quality °quick service' automotive retailers which offer various automobile maintenance products and services". The site is zoned PCD. The abutting property to the west is zoned C-3, and is the location of a strip C-3 commercial shopping center. The property across W. Markham St. to the north is zoned C-3, and is the location of a large commercial development. The properties to the east and south are zoned R-2, although the property to the east is the location of an ENTERGY substation. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: No Engineering or Utility Comments were requested, since the proposal involves only a change in a condition of approval and not any issues involving the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: As a condition of approval of the original PCD, the requirement that overhead doors remain open no longer than three minutes cannot be overlooked or deleted without conducting a public hearing and amending the PCD. E. ANALYSIS: Since 1987 the development along W. Markham St. has increased dramatically, and the commercial character of the corridor has been established. Other auto -related businesses are in the immediate vicinity. There is approximately 300 feet between the rear face of the West Markham Auto Mall building and the rear wall of the two homes which are behind it. Rock Creek also lies between the PCD and the residential area to the south. Noise from this one source (the West Markham Auto Mall) is probably not distinguishable from the background noise generated by traffic and other business in the area. K l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2245-D The original PCD restricted the uses to those uses by right in the C-3 zoning district and the "auto specialty shop" category of uses in the C-4 zoning district. These included such uses as auto glass and muffler shops, but excluded engine rebuilding and paint and body shops. The business hours which were established are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There has apparently been no disturbance of the residential area by the overhead doors remaining open, since Zoning Enforcement has had no complaints from residents to the south. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the amended PCD to permit the overhead doors to remain open during permitted business hours. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Dwight Linkous, the applicant, was present. Since the request involved no site plan issues, but only a use issue, there was no discussion of the request. Staff outlined to the Committee members the requested change in conditions of the PCD, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that the Birchwood Neighborhood Association had sent a letter to staff indicating that the Association did not object to the change in conditions, but that they recommended a 3 -month trial period be approved prior to the change being approved permanently. Two of the abutting property owners, however, have indicated, in person and in a written request, that they opposed the change and requested a denial of the change. The neighbors said that the PCD businesses are causing noise, and that the doors staying open contribute to this. Staff, however, said that the amount of development along W. Markham St. over the past few years, since the PCD was originally approved, has changed the conditions drastically, and that the time limitation on the doors staying open was no longer appropriate. Staff said that whatever noise which might come from the open doors cannot possibly be heard over the general background noise from traffic and other businesses in the area. Staff recommended approval of the requested change, and the item was approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z -4249-B NAME: FREEWAY BUSINESS PARK, LOT 6 -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the south side of I-630, between Rodney Parham Rd. and Hughes St. DEVELOPER: AGENT: Mr. Dave Grundfest, III Mr. Jeff Hathaway THE DAVE GRUNDFEST CO. THE HATHAWAY GROUP P. 0. Box 192525 100 Morgan Keegan Dr., Suite 120 Little Rock, AR 72219 Little Rock, AR 72202-2214 568-2324 663-5400 AREA: 1.141 ACRES ZONING• PD -O PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.01 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND: PROPOSED USES: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Auto Paint and Body Rebuilding Shop On March 22, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on and recommended approval of the "Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form POD" (Z -4249-A). On May 3, 1994, the Board of Directors approved an ordinance establishing the POD, Ordinance No. 16,644. The list of approved uses was: "clinic (medical, dental, and optical); duplication shops; establishment of a religious, charitable, or philanthropic organization; governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf course, tennis courses, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps, and passive recreational open space (enclosed only); group care facility; laboratory (no biological activity); library, art gallery, museum ,or other similar use; mortuary or funeral home; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school or kindergarten; school (business); school (commercial or trade); school (public or denominational); studio (broadcasting or recording); studio (broadcasting and recording); antenna (limited to no higher than 60 feet); studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic endeavors); travel bureau; antique shop; book and stationery store; camera shop; cigar, tobacco, or candy store; custom sewing or millinery; florist shop; health studio or spa (enclosed); jewelry store; key shop; tailor shop; job printing, lithographer, printing, or May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: z -4249-B blueprinting; parking, commercial lot, or garage; office showroom/warehouse; school (commercial, trade, or craft); studio (music, dance, or ceramics); appliance repair (no small engine repair); hauling and storage; landscape service; lawn and garden center (enclosed); light fabrication and assembly process; mini - warehouse; office warehouse; school, business; warehouse and wholesaling." This list of proposed and approved uses was taken from the list of approved uses in the 0-3 and I-1 zoning districts. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the addition of one more use to the list of approved uses for Freeway Business Park: an auto paint and body rebuilding shop. The additional use is to be limited to Lot 6 only. The applicant states that "Nothing about this amendment would substantially change the overall spirit and intent of the previously approved POD, which is that of a small, mixed-use business park...." Proposed is construction of a building to be 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in size, with predominantly the office use visible from the front/Freeway Dr. face of the building. (No overhead doors are to be located on this face of the building.) The applicant maintains that the "proposed development will be completely different from what is typically though of as a 'body shop'...." The applicant states that the building will be a "handsome" building which will be nicer than the Parker Cadillac Body Shop PCD recently approved. "It will have all outside storage areas completely screened by opaque fencing and located behind the building.... Odors and fumes will not be a factor because all painting actives will be conducted in a modern enclosed paint booth, and because High Volume Low Pressure (H.V.L.P.) spray guns will be used .... This exceeds current E.P.A. standards." The applicant indicates that the hours of operation are to be from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. No change to the originally approved site plan is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is proposed to add an additional use to the list of approved uses to be applicable only for Lot 6 of Freeway Business Park -- Long -Form POD. An amended POD is, therefore, requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The Freeway Business Park is currently being developed, with site work being underway and construction of the interior roadway, Freeway Drive, to commence shortly. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B Lot 6, the lot being affected by the proposed change, is an interior lot in the Freeway Business Park. The zoning surrounding Lot 6, then, is POD (except to the north where I-630 abuts). The zoning surrounding the Freeway Business Park includes an R-4 residential area to the east, a cemetery, zoned R-2, to the south, and a C-3 tract to the west. I-630 bounds the site to the north. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Since the proposal involved only a use issue, no comments from engineering or the utilities were requested. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The approval of the original POD was specific in its list of approved uses. This list was negotiated by the developer at that time and the University Park neighborhood to the east. The addition of a use requires an amendment to the POD, involving conducting the public hearing, approval by the Planning Commission, and an amending ordinance passed by the Board of Directors. The Planned Development Ordinance does not restrict the amount of commercial development which can be included in a Planned Office Development. It is the overall character and the predominant uses which determine whether a development is considered a POD versus another classification. The Planning staff reports that, with the mixture of uses already approved, the one additional use which has been requested by the applicant, with the conditions proposed by the applicant, and with the location of the lot being an interior lot, no conflict with the adopted POD appears to exist. E. ANALYSIS• If, indeed, the building is a "handsome" one, and retains the "look" of an office building which is in keeping with the Planned Office Development, and, since the mixture of permitted uses is so broad to include 0-3 and I-1 uses, the one additional use, as portrayed, does not appear to conflict with the character of approved POD. Any residential use is separated from the affected lot, Lot 6, by over 1,000 feet 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of an amendment of the list of permitted uses to include the requested auto paint and body rebuilding shop. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Jeff Hathaway, agent for the proposed buyer, offered to be present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but staff related that, since the requested action involved no site plan issues, but only a use issue, there would be no discussion of the item at the Subdivision Committee meeting. At the meeting, staff outlined the requested change, and, without discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item, and reported that the staff recommendation was for approval of the requested additional use for Lot 6 of an auto body and repair shop, noting that the lot is approximately 1,000 feet away from the nearest residence to the east in the University Park neighborhood, and that the applicant is proposing that the building resemble an office building from the front in keeping with the original plan for the area. Staff pointed out that a petition from the University Park neighborhood had been received, objecting to the amendment to the POD. Mr. Jeff Hathaway, identifying himself as the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the added use is a relatively minor change to the POD uses previously approved. He indicated that the applicant, Mr. Larry Golden, was present and was planning to build a "state-of-the- art" body repair facility. He reported that the applicant would commit to having no chain link fencing along the Freeway Dr. frontage of the lot, but, instead, would provide a 6 foot high privacy fence; and, that there would be no overhead doors facing Freeway Dr. He maintained that: 1) due to the distance and the elevation difference between the site and the residences to the east in University Park; 2) due to the 6 foot high brick fence required to be constructed in the original POD application along Hughes St.; and 3) due to the donation of the lots abutting the site along Hughes St. to the University Park Neighborhood Association regluired in the original POD, there would be no effect on the neighborhood. He also pointed out that there would be three additional commercial lots between the neighborhood and the proposed body shop site. He explained that from the top of the brick fence to be erected along the Hughes St. right-of-way 4 l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B to the top of the proposed body shop building is a difference of 18 feet in elevation. With a 20 foot high building, the total elevation difference between the top of the brick fence along Hughes St. to the ground elevation at the building is 38 feet. He explained that traffic, both through the University Park neighborhood and within the POD area should not be impacted at all, since no traffic has access to the abutting neighborhood, and the proposed business is in keeping with the nature of the businesses already approved. He pointed out that the approved list of uses already includes uses such as "trade school" and "commercial parking lot"; that, like a commercial body shop, a trade school often has body shop training facilities as part of its activities, and, like a parking lot, cars will be parked on the proposed facility's premises on a short-term basis while they are being repaired. He concluded by maintaining that the original concept of a multi -lot, mixed use business park is not be compromised by the addition of the use being proposed. Commissioner Daniels asked for clarification on the type of fencing to be installed along the I-630 frontage of the lot, and on the hours of operation. Mr. Larry Golden, the applicant, explained that down both side property lines, a wood privacy fence is proposed; however, because there is an existing chain link fence installed by the Highway Department along the freeway right-of-way, there has been no decision on the type or need of additional fencing in that location. He explained that the hours of operation are 7:30 to 5:30, but that, when there is a need to get a collision repair completed expeditiously, he would anticipate to be able to begin work earlier than 7:30 and stay after hours. He would not, he stated, be a 24-hour operation, though, and he would not have a second shift. He added that the POD already has a 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM restriction on activity for the mini -storage use, and he would abide by that restriction in the operation of his business. Commissioner McCarthy asked for information on the number of employees of the business, and on the method of painting automobiles. Mr. Golden explained that he would probably being with 6 employees, and would anticipate growing to employ 13-14 persons. He stated that all painting is done in an EPA -approved booth which is sealed to prevent escape of fumes. Air, he said, is filtered, and there are no toxic emissions permitted. Commissioner Willis asked for information on the number of cars which will be repaired at any one time. Mr. Golden said that there are 10 work stalls proposed, including the paint booth, and that the back lot should park 15 vehicles. There will be, then a maximum of 20-25 cars on the premises at W, May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B any one time. He added that all stalls are accessed from a center aisle; that there are doors on each end of the building, thus eliminating needing individual stall doors to the outside. He used in his presentation an architectural rendering of the proposed building elevations, and he and Mr. Hathaway said that the drawings presented are probably fairly close to the building layout, elevations, and exterior finishes to be constructed, and the finished building will resemble the design presented to the Commission. Commissioner Willis asked for information on the ground elevation difference between I-630 and the site. Mr. Golden said that there is a significant elevation difference, since access to I-630 from Rodney Parham involves driving up a significant on-ramp, and Hughes St., at the other end of the project, also involves driving up and over a bridge over I-630. Commissioner Willis and Commissioner Woods commented, then, that I-630 traffic would be looking down onto the site. Mr. Al Porter, representing the University Park neighborhood, expressed the neighborhood's opposition to the addition of the use to the POD. He said that the neighborhood did not want to change the character of the POD. A POD had been approved by the neighborhood originally, in 1994, to keep from having to deal with changes and modifications, and the negotiated POD uses approved in 1994 are those the neighborhood wants to stand by, he said. He pointed out that a petition, signed by 135 University Park residents, had been presented in opposition to the change. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that, if a body shop is constructed in the middle of the development, then that use will set the character of the rest of the development, and the character will be different from what was originally envisioned for the "business park". Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson agreed that the first use probably will set the precedent for other uses, but he questioned whether a "paint and body shop" is still the same "animal" as what we think of as a paint and body shop, with clanging and banging and beating out of metal. He recalled that, when dealing with the Parker Cadillac Paint and Body Shop, the Commission heard that collision repair facilities are not the same any longer; that parts are replaced rather than straightened; that parts are less and less metal and are plastics, instead; and that there are no fumes associated with the business any longer. In the case of the Parker Cadillac Body Shop, the use was permitted directly across the street from a residential area. He said that the collision repair facility proposed is not the same as what would have been classified as a C-4 use, but rather, would appear, from the exterior, as any 6 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B other business use which is consistent with the type approved in the original POD, except for the storage of cars outside the building. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that wrecked cars would be parked at the rear of the facility, with traffic on I-630 looking down on these vehicles. He noted that, at Parker Cadillac Body Shop, the cars are concealed at the rear of the building. He said that he felt that the freeway corridor would be adversely affected by having wrecked cars visible from I-630. Commissioner Adcock expressed concern about possible noise from the body rebuilding activities which would affect not only the abutting businesses, but the neighborhood. Mr. Golden reiterated that the collision damage business is different from what is normally considered to be a body shop; that with the advent of plastics, the various body parts of cars are not beat out, but are replaced. He also maintained that the building design will contain any noise which is generated within the building. Commissioner Selz asked whether the overhead doors at the ends of the building would be left closed or open. Mr. Golden responded that the doors are to be left open, since the shop is not air conditioned. Commissioner Woods, returning to his concern about the visual impact of wrecked cars being visible from I-630, said that approval of the use would affect not only the business park and University Park, but the whole city. Mr. Golden responded that the lot at the rear of his facility, which would be visible from I-630, would not be that different from a commercial parking lot which is permitted, or from a parking lot which is associated with any other business which might be developed on the particular lot in question. Mr. Hathaway reviewed the list of possible uses which was approved in the POD, and said that such uses as a lawn and garden center, schools, light fabrication and process business, warehouse, etc., would have the same visual impact as the proposed collision repair facility. Mr. John Talley, a member of the University Park neighborhood association, spoke in opposition to the amended POD, saying that this change will lead to other changes. Mr. Hathaway pointed out that the Freeway Business Park developer is the proposed seller of the lot to Mr. Golden, and that the developer will still be trying to sell the other lots in the 7 r May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B development; that it would not be in the developers best interests to box himself in to selling a lot for a use which would restrict viable sales to other buyers; and, that the developer is very comfortable with the compatibility of Mr. Golden's use to other uses of the remaining lots. Commissioner Chachere expressed concern that those in cars on 1- 630, albeit not necessarily drivers of vehicles, would be looking down on damaged and wrecked cars, and, with the possibility of a trade embargo with Japan, cars might have to wait for repair parts for extended periods of time. Mr. Golden responded that the storage of vehicles to be repaired is for short-term storage only. He said that a fence could not be built tall enough to completely shield the view of the rear of the lot from I-630, but that there is a row of trees which acts as a partial screen at this time, especially in this time of year. He offered to plant additional trees along the I-630 right-of-way line. Mr. Hathaway expressed the opinion that, due to the location of the traffic lanes on I-630 and the height of the embankment dropping off from the interstate, that the view from the interstate does not include the area of Mr. Golden's rear parking lot, but would be to the south of the lot across the building, street, and cemetery; to see the rear of the lot, one would have to be able to look straight down, and the topography will not permit that. Commissioner McCarthy suggested that the applicant seek suggestions on ways to visually screen the parking area from the interstate. Commissioner Daniels suggested that cars waiting to be repaired be kept in a covered building. Mr. Golden responded that he could not commit to such an option without studying the costs, but that he would be amenable to planting a row of trees along the right-of-way line. Commissioner Woods pointed out that planting trees would not provide immediate screening; that a period of years would be needed to create the visual screening. Mr. Hathaway suggested that a row of evergreen trees be planted along the right-of-way with a spacing of 10 feet on center, with the trees to be 3" caliper at planting. Chairperson Walker called the question, and the motion to approve the amended POD, as modified, was automatically deferred until the June 27,1995 Commission hearing due to a vote of 3 ayes, 5 nays, 2 abstentions, and 1 absent not giving the required 6 E3 May 16, 1995' SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4249-B votes for against an item for it to be either approved or defeated. �f May 16, 1995 ` ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -5105-A NAME: HINSON PARK ADDITION -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the east side of Hinson Loop Rd., approximately 200 feet south of Hinson Rd. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• Jim Irwin Pat McGetrick THE IRWIN CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 10800 Financial Center Parkway 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72211 225-5700 223-9900 AREA: 2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 ZONING: PCD PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 FT. NEW STREET• 0 Offices VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of access to the interior lots by way of an access easement. BACKGROUND• A PCD was approved by the Planning Commission for a site which includes the subject property on January 3, 1989, then, on February 7, 1989, the Board of Directors approved Ordinance No. 15,635 which established the PCD. The approved site plan shows a free-standing building at the corner of Hinson Dr. and Hinson Loop Dr. The area associated with this building was shown as Lot 1 of the preliminary plat, and was a 3/4 acre site. To the south an "L" shaped strip office and commercial center was shown of an area designated at Lot 2 of the preliminary plat. The free- standing building was subsequently built and a final plat for Lot 1 was filed. This building was approved for and is used for offices. The second building was never constructed, and the land where it was to have been located was left undeveloped. This "L" shaped building was to have had a mixture of office and commercial uses, with a predominance of office uses, and with a restriction for office uses only on the south side of the development abutting residential uses. A 25 foot wide access easement straddling the Lot 1 -Lot 2 property line was show in the preliminary plat of the original subdivision of the property; however, the final plat of Lot 1 does not indicate the north half of the access easement as being provided for. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5105-A STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to: 1) subdivide the 2 -acre tract into 4 lots; then, 2) amend the POD to change the use to exclusively office uses. The two lots fronting on Hinson Loop Rd. are each to be approximately 0.52 acres each. Two lots are proposed to be interior lots, and are to be approximately 0.45 acres each. Each of the lots is proposed to contain one building (the two building closest to Hinson Loop being 60 feet by 80 feet, or 4,800 square feet each; the two interior buildings being 60 feet by 100 feet, or 6,000 square feet each). Parking for 95 vehicles is to be provided on-site. Access to the two interior lots is to be by way of access easements from Hinson Loop Rd. The required dedication of additional right-of-way and construction of required Master Street Plan improvements for Hinson Loop Rd. are proposed. Approval of access to the interior lots by way of access easements from Hinson Loop Road is requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for an amended POD to modify the approved site plan and list of approved uses, and to permit access to the interior lots by way of an access easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The existing zoning of the site is PCD. The site was part of a larger PCD site which includes land to the north at the corner of Hinson Loop Rd. and Hinson Rd. Land at the northeast corner of the site is zoned 0-3, as is land to the west across Hinson Loop Rd. Land to the south and east is zoned R-5 and is the location of a large apartment development. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) there some technical matters on the proposed plat which need to be addressed; 2) street improvements with sidewalks are required by the Master Street Plan; 3) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; 4) a grading permit must be obtained prior to starting work on the site; 5) an access easement must be provided for access to the interior lots. Water Works comments that a water main extension and on-site fire protection are required. A pro -rata front footage charge of $15.00/f000t applies along Hinson Loop Rd. K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5105-A Wastewater comments that sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provided comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department commented that on-site fire hydrants will be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments: 1) Sec. 36-456 requires that a statement describing the character of the development, and including the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made, be provided. This has not been done, and this "Project Narrative" is essential. The project narrative should address the development schedule, signage and lighting, etc. 2) Sec. 36-456 requires that the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property be addressed, and that a schematic landscaping plan be submitted. These requirements are not met. 3) On the preliminary plat, the following needs to be furnished: a) the type of subdivision is to be identified; b) the name and address of the owner of record, giving the source of title with book and page number or instrument number, are required to be shown; c) the minimum lot size is supposed to be quantified; d) any existing covenants and restrictions are to be identified; e) a vicinity map which correctly identifies the project site; f) "natural features" (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and "cultural features" (existing and plated streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision are to be shown; g) the names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number are to be shown, and for commercial subdivisions the owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision are to be indicated; h) adequate 3 t May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5105-A physical descriptions are to be provided for all monuments, indicating the size, type of materials, and construction of monuments; i) the zoning classifications within the plat and of abutting areas are to be shown; and, j) the certifications are to be executed indicating that the survey has been filed with the office of the State Surveyor. 4) Sec. 31-89 requires a preliminary storm drainage plan be provided. This has not been submitted. 5) Sec. 31-231 states that "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved by the Planing Commission." Sec. 31-207 says that private streets for non-residential use shall be discouraged; however, that the planning commission may approve them for limited use when the design standards of this chapter are used as a basis for review. The section continues, adding that the developer shall demonstrate that the street system can adequately serve the needs of public service vehicles for access, turning radius, and clearance of other improvements with the access easement. The design of non-residential private streets shall, the section continues, provide for access to a public right of -way as required for private driveways. The developer is to provide for the permanent maintenance of the street and infrastructure improvements. There is apparently a question about the existence of a mutual access easement which was shown to be located along the common property line of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Since the current developer proposes to use the common driveway with Lot 1 to provide access to the site, the existence of a cross -access agreement needs to be verified. There is a second access easement indicated which lies along the interior lot lines between the new lots on the south and the lots on the north. The existing subdivision is named "Hinson Corners Subdivision", and shows Lots 1 and 2. The new subdivision is a subdivision of what was shown on the original preliminary plat as Lot 2. The new subdivision, named "Hinson Park Addition" has Lots 1-4. 6) Landscape review comments that, since the right-of-way along Hinson Loop has been moved eastward, the proposed buffer drops below the average width requirement of 16° (10.5' minimum with transfer) parallel with the street. Also, the south side of the proposed parking lots 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: 17.-5105-A project over the minimum 6' required buffer required by Ordinance. The average buffer width required along the southern perimeter is 13' (9' minimum with transfer). The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum of 4'. A 6' high opaque screen, either a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the eastern and southern site perimeters. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 7) The Planning staff reports that the change from a mixed office and commercial use to an exclusively office use development is supported. E. ANALYSIS• Critical elements of the submittal are missing: the cover letter/project narrative; the landscaping plan; and substantial information required on the preliminary plat. The private interior street, in access easements, serve only a 3 -acre tract (2 acres in the subject tract, plus 1 acre in the developed tract). As long as the street plans meet Public Works design standards, the private street system is acceptable. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends approval of the amended PD -0, and recommends approval of the access easement to provide the required access to the interior lots, subject to the applicant submitting the required cover letter/project narrative and completing the exhibits. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the proposal, and the Committee reviewed with Mr. McGetrick the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick indicated that he would address the issues raised, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and staff recommended approval of the PD -0 and the requested variance to permit access to the interior lots by way of an access easement. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5105-A approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. rl May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 10 FILE NO.: Z -5745-A NAME: LOWE -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -OFFICE LOCATION: On the west side of S. Bryant St., approximately 80 feet south of W. 32nd. St., at 3210 S. Bryant St. DEVELOPER• JAN LOWE 4319 W. 10th. St. Little Rock, AR 72204 664-7948 AREA• 0.14 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 21.02 AGENT• JACK MURPHY 7820 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 1 72205 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Beauty Salon VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver from the requirement to provide additional right-of-way along the Bryant St. frontage of the site. BACKGROUND• On November 16, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a POD entitled the "Murphy-Holitic -- Short -Form POD". On December 7, 1993, the Board of Directors passed an ordinance establishing the POD, Ordinance No. 16,533. The POD was comprised of two residential -style structures which had been used as professional offices since before the area was annexed into the City (for 33 years at that time), and had continued to be used as professional offices in a non -conforming status. Doctor George Holitik owned the office at the corner of Bryant St. and 32nd. St.; Dr. Mark Murphy owned the office immediately to the south. At that time, no modifications to the structures were proposed, and no change in use was proposed. The POD provided for convertibility of use to any other use listed by right in the 0-1 zoning district. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend the Planned Development previously approved to permit her to operate a beauty salon in the structure which was occupied by Dr. Mark Murphy, the second structure south of 32nd. St. No change is proposed for the structure occupied by Dr. Holitic at the corner of Bryant St. and 32nd. St. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.)_ FILE NO.: Z -5745-A The applicant states that no changes are to be made to the exterior of the building; however, that off street parking will be provided in the back yard. There is an existing concrete driveway which extends westward off Bryant St., and the paved parking area is to extend from the end of this driveway to within 4.6 feet of the rear property line, and to extend north to within 4.6 feet of the north property line. The existing drive is 0.3 feet off the south property line, but at the west end of the driveway, where the new paved parking area begins, the applicant proposes to off -set the paving to provide a 4.6 foot landscaped area along this portion of the south property line. The existing on -street parking is to be eliminated. A 6 foot privacy fence is proposed to be erected along the west and south property lines as a screen between the office use and the residential uses. The applicant proposes that there are to be three beauty operators, and that the shop will be open from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Tuesdays through Saturdays. The applicant states that she "want(s) to assure the... Commission that my beauty salon will be a quietly run operation ... (and that) there will be no more employees than the four now in the dental office. She states further that: "I am sure the number of customers I serve when I (am) open will be fewer than the present number of dental patients." A waiver is requested from the requirement that 10 additional feet of right-of-way be dedicated along the Bryant St. frontage of the site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors of an amended PO -D is requested. Approval of a waiver of the requirement to dedicate additional right-of- way is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is the current location of a dental office, and retains the appearance of a residence. The site is zoned PD -O, and includes the medical office in the residential structure to the north. All the surrounding properties are zoned R-2. There is a school immediately across Bryant St. to the east. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) an additional 10 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated; 2) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; and, 3) no fencing or shrubs are allowed within 15' of back of curb. E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5745 - water Works has no objections to the development. Wastewater comments that sewer is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not furnished comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. did not furnished comments. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape review comments that the required buffer width along the western perimeter is 41-61° and 3'-9" along the southern perimeter. The Landscape Ordinance requirement in these areas is a minimum of 4' in width. A 6' high opaque screen, either a wooden "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings, is required along the western and southern property lines. Sec. 36-279 is the listing for 0-1 Quite Office District uses. A beauty shop is permitted only as a conditional use in this listing. The Planning staff comments that the beauty shop operation, with the construction of a parking lot which occupies almost the entire rear yard, is in conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan which recognizes only residential uses for the area. In the 1993 comments the Planning staff pointed out that, except for the school across the street, there are no other non-residential uses in the area, and cautioned that the land use plan should not be changed; that the area is and should remain residential. The POD which was requested, added the Planing staff, should be limited only to the existing professional office uses, and that any other uses should be limited to those allowed by right in the 0-1 district. E. ANALYSIS• The staff supported the 1993 rezoning because the two structures had been used as professional offices for 33 years, and because the structures had retained their residential character. The current proposal, however, adds a parking lot which involves paving almost the entire back yard. The professional office character is to retain less of its residential -professional office character and will become more of a commercial operation, retaining no rear 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5745-A yard. The parking lot will take its access to the rear parking lot by way of a driveway which lies just 0.3 feet off the south property line, beyond which lies a single- family home. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of requested amendment to the PD -O. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Ms. Jan Lowe, the applicant, and Mr. Jack Murphy, representing the owner -seller, were present. Staff outlined the nature of the requested development and the nature of the existing POD zoning of the site. The Committee reviewed with Ms. Lowe and Mr. Murphy the comments contained in the discussion outline. The need for landscaping and buffering were discussed. The Public Works comment regarding having to dedicate 10 feet of additional right- of-way along Bryant St. was discussed; Mr. Murphy asking why the right-of-way was needed and why this requirement was not brought up in 1993 when the existing POD was approved. The Public Works staff member said that he would review the 1993 comments, but that the Master Street Plan clearly requires dedication of the additional right-of-way. Ms. Lowe and Mr. Murphy said that they would address the comments contained in the discussion outline, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the request, and indicated that the staff recommendation was for denial of the requested change because of the change in use from professional office to a beauty shop, and because of the development of a parking lot in the rear yard of the office structure. Director of Neighborhoods and Planning Jim Lawson said that the recommendation for denial was a close call, since a beauty shop is considered an "office" use in the Zoning Ordinance; since the impact on number of employees, parking, and clients will be no greater than the current office use; and, since there have been no complaints from abutting neighbors regarding the proposed change. He suggested that the Commission consider these points in making a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Mr. Jack Murphy, representing the applicant, Ms. Lowe, and the seller, Dr. Mark Murphy, said that the proposed parking lot was an attempt to alleviate a problem with traffic backing onto Bryant St. from the existing driveway. He also said that the applicant was willing to meet the landscape buffer requirements 4 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 10 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5745-A by installing perimeter fencing or shrubbery, but that the abutting neighbor to the south did not want a privacy fence or screening plantings installed. He reported that three are currently 4 staff persons working in the office, with 3 operatories, and that once or twice a month, patients are seen on Saturdays. Ms. Jan Lowe, the applicant, pointed out that there is a junior high school located directly across Bryant St., and a doctor's office abutting the site to the north. She said that her office hours would be from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Tuesdays through Saturdays. She pointed out that the original POD approved for the property allowed other uses of the property from the list of uses by right in the 0-1 zoning district, and maintained that her beauty shop would be less intense than some of these uses which could go into the building without amending the POD; such as, a daycare, orphanage, etc. She said that she proposed to begin work by herself initially, but to expand to 3 beauty operators in the shop in the immediate future, with the possibility of expanding to 4 operators at a later date. Commissioner Willis pointed out that 5 parking spaces are provided for on the site plan, and questioned whether the parking was adequate for the number of employees and clients which was being proposed. Commissioner Putnam observed that the activity level would not be that much different from the dental office which had occupied the building for years; that parking had not been a problem; that if there were inadequate parking, clients would not patronize the business; and, that the activities of the beauty shop would be totally enclosed within the building. Commissioner Willis asked staff to explain what the requirement would be for parking for the use. Staff explained that, in a planned development, the standard parking requirements are used as a guide only, but that for an office use, 5 parking spaces would be required. Staff pointed out that the parking regulations do not take into account the number of chairs in a beauty shop. Mr. Lawson stated that any signage erected would be that as permitted in the 0-1 zoning district. The question was called, and the item was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 1 nay, 0 abstentions, and 2 absent. 5 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO • 11 FILE NO.• Z-5957 NAME: YOUNG -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -COMMERCIAL LOCATION: On the north side of Colonel Glenn Rd., approximately 3/4 mile west of the Lawson Rd. intersection, outside the City Limits. DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: MERLE E. YOUNG HOPE ENGINEERING 13320 Colonel Glenn Rd. 406 W. South St. Little Rock, AR 72210 Benton, AR 72015 225-7523 778-0786 AREA: 2 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 18 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 Mini -Storage & Boat and Recreational Vehicle Storage VARIANCES REQUESTED: Approval of a waiver of the Master Street Plan improvements along the Colonel Glenn Rd. frontage of the site. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a 2 -acre development, one acre, the eastern -most site, being proposed for a mini -storage development; the second acre, the western -most site, being for a boat and recreational vehicle storage yard. Each of the sites has 282.50 feet of frontage on Colonel Glenn Rd. The mini -storage area is proposed to contain four buildings, each 30 feet wide by 100 feet long. Security lighting for the mini -storage area is to be located on the front face of each of the four buildings and along the rear of the property line. Security lighting for the boat and recreational vehicle storage yard is proposed to be located at each of the four corners of the lot. The site is to be completely surrounded by a 6 foot high chain link fence, with barbed wire on top. The boat and recreational vehicle storage yard is to be an open lot completely surrounded by a similar fence. Each of the two lots has a single gate driveway entrance off Colonel Glenn. Landscaping along the Colonel Glenn frontage of the tract is proposed. Five vehicle parking spaces are indicated to be provided on the mini -storage lot. An on-site manager will attend the site, and hours of operation for the facility will be from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, seven days per week. Access to the site after hours will be available by contacting an attendant by way of a pager. The construction of the mini- r May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957 storage buildings is planned to be phased over a period of time, depending upon business. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PD -C. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval of the waiver of street improvements along Colonel Glenn is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped. It is currently a pasture, with scattered trees. The existing zoning of the site is R-2. The R-2 zoning district extends to the properties to the east, north, and west. Across Colonel Glenn Rd., the zoning is AF. The area is approximately 1/4 mile outside the City Limits. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the plat has some technical requirements which need clarification; 2) Colonel Glenn is a Principal Arterial; so, dedication of right-of- way to provide a minimum of 55 feet from centerline and construction of additional roadway to provide a street width of 33 feet from the centerline, with a sidewalk, is required; 3) a stormwater detention analysis is required; and, 4) the security gates must be moved back to allow for off street parking in front of the gates. Water Works comments that the proposed development is outside the City Limits, but recommends that fire hydrants be installed. Wastewater comments that the proposed development is outside the service boundary of Wastewater Utility. No service is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot easement at the perimeter of the site and along the common lot line. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department comments that an on-site fire hydrant may be required. 2 l May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957 D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: The 2 -acre tract is part of a larger tract, and a proper subdivision, including the larger tract from which the two 1 -acre lots are taken, must be provided and approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan needs to show sidewalks, drives, landscape areas, the proposed treatment of the perimeter of the property, etc. The project narrative indicates that there will be an on-site manager. The location of the office is not shown. The office use must be requested and the office area must be designated. Landscape review comments that: a land use buffer of 28' in width is required (19' minimum with transfers) with a 6' high opaque screen along the eastern and western site perimeters; to the north, the buffer is required to be 81 in width, and have a 6' high opaque screen; (The screening may consist of a wooden "good neighbor" fence or be dense evergreen plantings.); and, the buffer requirement along Col. Glenn Rd. is 8' in width (As a part of the land use buffers, trees and shrubs are required to be planted unless otherwise present.). The Planning Staff comments that the site is in the Ellis Mountain planning district, and that the adopted Land Use Plan for this area recommends only single- family uses. The proposed development use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. E. ANALYSIS: There are critical deficiencies in the submittal: the site is not properly subdivided from the "parent" tract; the required right-of-way for Colonel Glenn Rd. is not provided; the plan does not show the required landscaping buffers and interior landscaping; etc. The use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. Public Works can support a deferral from the Master Street Plan improvements along Colonel Glenn Rd., but dedication of the required right-of-way must be provided. Dedication of the right-of-way which is required will drastically effect the plan. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 11 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5957 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the PD -C. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. and Mrs. Merle Young, the applicants, were present. Staff outlined the requested use and reviewed with the Committee members the site plan which was submitted. Staff and the Committee members reviewed with the Young's the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Young's said that the dedication of the required right-of-way could be provided, but that a waiver of the Master Street Plan improvements for Colonel Glenn Rd. would be requested. The landscaping and buffer requirements were reviewed by staff, and the Young's said that the site plan would be amended to provide the required landscape and buffer areas. The Committee, after informing the Young's that the revised site plans would need to be submitted to staff, forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had, immediately prior to the opening of the hearing, related that he wanted to request a deferral of his item. Staff recommended that the item be added to the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. Young was asked by the Chair to make his request for deferral to the Commission, which Mr. Young did. The deferral of the item was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. N May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.• Z-5981 NAME: DOWNEN -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the south side of Asher Ave., approximately 0.25 mile east of John Barrow Rd., at 8315 Asher Ave. DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR• RANDAL L. DOWNEN JAMES L. BUTLER, RLS 5309 Western Hills Ave. 5323 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 North Little Rock, AR 72116 565-0329 753-4965 AREA: 1.23 AC. NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• C-3 & R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 24.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES• None Car Wash & Mini -Storage The applicant proposes the development of a mini -storage facility to the rear/south of his current car wash facility. The current car wash is a 4 -bay, self service type facility, which is 24 feet deep by 70 feet in length. This building sets approximately 70 feet south of the Asher Ave. right-of-way. The new mini -storage facility involves construction of five mini -storage buildings and a resident manager's office/apartment building. Three of the mini -storage buildings are to be constructed in a "U" shape around the perimeter of the site, with two other buildings in the courtyard area. Mini -storage building areas total 9,850 square feet of floor area. The office/apartment building contains 600 square feet and is situated immediately behind the car wash building along the west property line. A 16 foot landscape area is provided along the south property line abutting the residentially zoned property; a minimum 8 foot wide landscape buffer area is provided along both the east and west property lines of the portion of the site which is being developed for mini -storage use. Along the east and front property lines of the existing car wash use area, landscaping is to be added. All drives are proposed to be paved, and no change is proposed to be made to the parking lot which extends to the west property line to the west of the car wash; no landscaping is proposed in this area. Required landscaping is to be provided around the office/apartment building. Lighting fixtures are to be mounted on the corners and at the mid -point of the lengths of the buildings, and are not to be visible from beyond the site to the 1 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5981 south, east, or west. The entire mini -storage use area is to be surrounded by an 8 foot high chain link fence, and access to the area will be by way of a key actuated gate. The site will be accessible from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. seven days per week. The resident manager will have office hours of from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays, and 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. A sign is proposed to be erected at the Asher Ave. frontage of the site. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for establishment of a PCD. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The front portion of the site contains a car wash facility, and almost the entire site is paved. The area to the rear, beginning approximately 150 feet south of the front property line, is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. An abandoned alley separates the two areas. There is a large mobile home park on the property to the east. There is undeveloped and heavily wooded land to the south. The existing zoning of the front/north tract is C-3; the rear portion of the site, south of the abandoned alley, is zoned R-2. The C-3 zoning district extends to all properties to the east and west, as well as to properties across Asher Ave. Properties to the south and at the southwest corner of the rear tract are zoned R-2. The residential lots which face Manor Dr., approximately 400 feet to the west of the applicant's property, are deep lots, and extend to beyond the PCD site. One lot, the one that extends behind the applicants property, with the house facing Manor Dr., is 650 feet deep. The east portion of this lot, behind the applicant's site, is heavily wooded. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the plat has some technical deficiencies which will need correction; 2) dedicate 45' of additional right-of-way to provide the right-of-way required by the Master Street Plan will be required; 3) an in -lieu payment must be made for providing the required Master Street Plan improvements (including a sidewalk) along Asher Ave.; 4) AHTD must be contacted prior to any construction beginning and their approval must be obtained; 5) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; and, 6) the driveway must be 5 feet from the property line and the apron may not extend beyond the extension of the property line perpendicular to the centerline of Asher Ave. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5981 Water Works comments that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater comments that a sewer main is located on the site. No construction within the sewer easement is permitted. The owner is responsible for any damage to the existing sewer main during construction. Arkansas Power and Light Co. has not furnished comments to date. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department has not furnished comments to date. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: 1) The site plan needs to shown off-street parking spaces and sidewalks. 2) Landscape review notes that the areas set aside for buffers meet Ordinance requirements. In areas where the proposed structures will not provide appropriate screening adjacent to residential zones, it will be necessary to provide a 6' high opaque screen (either a wood "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen plantings). Non -conforming landscape areas associated with the existing car wash and vehicular use areas must be brought into compliance with the Landscape Ordinance. The Planning staff comments that the area is in the Boyle Park Planing District, and that the adopted Land Use Plan reflects a planned mixed use for the front portion of the site and single-family use for the rear portion. Since the existing zoning of the site and of all abutting properties along Asher Ave. is C-3, the "MX" plan use is probably not appropriate. Since the area to the rear is not likely to develop in single-family uses, the single-family use designation is probably not appropriate in this area. There probably needs to be a land use study and an overall plan amendment made to adjust the plan in this area. The mini - storage use, with proper buffering, is unlikely to be a conflict with the surrounding uses. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5981 E. ANALYSIS: There are only minor deficiencies in the submittal, and the applicant has indicated that these will be tended to. The mini -storage use, mixed in with the commercial uses along Asher Ave., and, both with the lack of development to the south/rear of the site and the unlikelihood that this area will develop as single-family uses, this proposed use should be no conflict any existing or future use. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PCD. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Randal Downen, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the requested PCD application and reviewed with Mr. Downen the comments contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed their comments regarding the right-of-way and street improvements issues. The need to meet the Landscape and Buffer Ordinances was discussed by staff. The Committee discussed with Mr. Downen the comments offered, then forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and staff recommended approval of the PCD. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: S -156-M NAME: HOOPER BOND ADDITION, LOT 3 -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the north side of Shackleford Dr., between Shackleford Rd. and W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: JIM DUNLAP 409 N. University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 664-6980 AREA: 1.85 ACRES ZONING: C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 CENSUS TRACT: 22.05 ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 722111 223-9900 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Restaurants The appellant proposes a site plan for review which contains two restaurant buildings on a 1.85 acre lot, with 98 parking spaces. The eastern -most building is to contain 5,380 square feet; the western -most building, 4,000 square feet. Two drive approaches off of Shackleford Dr. are to be provided. A 52 foot landscape buffer is proposed along the north property line, except, because of the location of the dumpster, the buffer area is reduced to 40 feet. No variance are requested. A. PROPOSAWREQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped, but has been prepared for development. The site is a lot in an existing commercial subdivision. The current zoning of the site is C-3, and the C-3 zoning district extends to all properties to the east and west, and across Shackleford Dr. to the south. There is a residential neighborhood, zoned R-2, abutting the site to the north. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-156-M C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the site plan has some technical decencies which need attention; 2) a sidewalk must be constructed along Shackleford Dr.; 3) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; and, 4) a grading permit may be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer is available. Arkansas Power and Light Co. did not provided comments. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department commented that all interior streets or driveways must be a minim of 20 feet in width. Interior fire hydrants may be required. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: 1) Sec. 36-130 specifies the requirements for Site Plan reviews, and the following, not included in the submittal, must be provided: a) the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening materials to be used; b) a schematic landscaping plan; c) a topographic cross-section; and, d) quantitative data, including the building coverage and floor areas. Sec. 36-502(3)c requires that, for restaurant uses, one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area be provided. The total building area is 9,380 square feet, requiring 94 parking spaces. Parking for 98 vehicles is provided. Sec. 31-13 requires site plan review for ",..construction involving two (2) or more buildings..." on a site. Because the proposed project contains two buildings, review of the site by the Planning Commission is required. K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION I ITEM NO.: 13 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-156-M 2) Landscape review comments that: the land use buffer along the north property line exceed the 11.51 width required; . the street buffer along Shackleford Dr. meets the 11.5' average width required, although it is 6' in width most of its length; a 6' high opaque screen is requited along the northern site perimeter; and, an 8' high opaque wood fence or wall will be required on three sides of the dumpster. E. ANALYSIS• The site plan substantially meets the requirements of the Ordinance, and there are only minor deficiencies. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed development plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. McGetrick and with staff the comments contained in the discussion outline. with only minimal discussion, the Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff reported that all issues had been recommended approval of the site plan. the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approval of the Consent Agenda with the 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. K (MAY 16, 1995) resolved, and staff The item was included on approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: S-1066 NAME: ATKINSON DENTAL CLINIC -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the south side of Kanis Rd., approximately 750 feet west of John Barrow Rd., at 9007 Kanis Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Pat McGetrick DR. ROBBIE R. ATKINSON MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 1801 W. 40th. St., Suite 2-A 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Pine Bluff, AR 71603 Little Rock, AR 722111 534-7860 223-9900 AREA: 0.8 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: C-3 PROPOSED USES: Offices PLANNING DISTRICT: 9 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes development of a site to contain two buildings to be used for offices, one of the buildings, the front/north building being an existing residential structure; the second, to be located at the rear/south extremity of the site, being a new building. The existing building is a single -story structure and has 2,265 square feet of floor area. The new facility will also be a single -story building, and will contain 4,500 square feet of floor area. A drive entrance to the site along the east property line is planned, with 33 parking spaces being provided. Required buffering and landscaping is proposed to be provided. No variance are requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review and approval by the Planning Commission of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a single, one-story residential structure, located 17 feet off the Kanis Rd. right-of-way line. Beyond the immediate rear yard area, the site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 14 (Cont.)_ FILE NO.: 5-1066 The current zoning of the site is C-3, and the C-3 zoning district extends onto all properties to the east, west, and south. Across Kanis Rd. to the north is an 0-3 zoned area. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) the site plan has some technical deficiencies which need to be addressed; 2) construction of one-half of minor arterial, with a sidewalk will be required; 3) additional right-of-way must be dedicated to provide 45 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Kanis Rd.; 4) a stormwater detention analysis must be provided; 5) the driveway, at its intersection with Kanis Rd. must be modified so that it makes the intersection at a 900 angle; 6) a grading permit may be required. Water Works comments that on-site fire protection may be required. Wastewater comments that sewer service is available to the site. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements. Their marked -up site plan indicates that a 15 foot wide easement will be required along all four sides of the site. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. is requiring a 5 foot easement along all four sides of the perimeter of the property. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department noted that on-site fire hydrants may be required to be provided on the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments that: Sec. 36-130 specifies the requirements for Site Plan review, and the following deficiencies are noted and need to be addressed: a) the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening materials to be used, is to be supplied; b) a schematic landscaping plan is to be provided; c) a topographic cross-section is to be provided; d) quantitative data, including the building coverage and floor areas, are to be provided; e) the existing and proposed pedestrian circulation system is to be shown; and, f) the location of all existing utility easements are to be noted. 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 14 (Cont.)-- FILE NO.: 5-1066 A legal description for the site is needed. The application indicates that the use is "office"; the applicant is shown as a doctor. Sec. 36-502(b)(2) states that medical clinics are to have 6 spaces per doctor or dentist; business and professional offices are to have 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. The 2265 square foot building, plus the 4500 square foot building would be required to have 18 spaces; 28 are provided. Sec. 31-13 requires site plan review for 11 ... construction involving two (2) or more buildings..." on a site. Because the proposed project contains two buildings, review of the site by the Planning Commission is required. Public works has noted that dedication of right-of-way and boundary street improvements are required. The applicant did not request any variances or waivers; yet, has not provided for these requirements in the site plan. whether the right-of-way and Master Street Plan improvements are to be provided, or not, must be addressed. Landscape review comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements; and, that curb and gutter or another approved protective borer will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. E. ANALYSIS• Two major questions remain unanswered; specifically, the right-of-way and street improvements issues. The site plan and required exhibits need to be complete and amended as required in the comments above. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the applicant completing the submittal requirements, and subject to either indicating that Master Street Plan requirements will be met or that a waive or deferral of these is requested. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff outlined the submitted site plan to the Committee, and reviewed with Mr. McGetrick the and Committee members the comments 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1066 contained in the discussion outline. The Public Works staff discussed the Master Street Plan requirements and the alignment of the driveway issue. Mr. McGetrick responded that these matters would be discussed with the applicant and the application would be amended as needed. The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff reported that all issues had been resolved, and staff recommended approval of the site plan. The item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval, and was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 4 f May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: Z -4814-A I. IK I �7 LOCATION: Daniels Automobile Repair and Service - Conditional Use Permit 2810 West 12th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: F. A. Daniels PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow the use of this existing, C-3 zoned service station as an automobile repair garage and service station. The applicant also desires to display and rent 4 U -Haul trucks and 4 U -Haul trailers on the site. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The property is located at the northwest corner of West 12th Street and Appian Way. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The property is located in area of extremely mixed zoning and uses ranging from R-3, single family residential to I-2, light industrial. The property to the west is zoned I-2 and an R-4 zoned duplex is adjacent to the north. The properties directly across West 12th Street and Appian Way are zoned C-3 and occupied by a variety of commercial uses. This site has a long established history of use as a service station and allowing the addition of auto repair and limited display and rental of U -Haul trucks and trailers would not seem incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The property is paved nearly from property line to property line. There is adequate parking and driveway space. The parking of U -Haul trucks and trailers will take place in an area directly east of the building and will not interfere with the required parking and driveways. 4. Screening and Buffers: No expansion of the building or parking lot are proposed. Staff would recommend that screening be installed along that May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4814-A portion of the northern perimeter between the proposed U -Haul display area and the adjacent residential property. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Construct handicap ramps at drives and corner intersection. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: On May 19, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit allowing for an expansion of the existing building and for limited motor vehicle repair to be added to the permitted use as a service station. Under that approval the applicant is allowed to furnish gasoline and lubricating oil as a service station. The limited motor vehicle repair restricts the applicant to such functions as tire mounting and other periodic parts maintenance. The applicant is now requesting a conditional use permit to allow an auto repair garage. This would allow the applicant to perform major vehicle repair, excluding body rebuilding, painting or refinishing. Staff feels that an auto repair garage is a reasonable use for this property as long as all repair work takes place within the enclosed bays of the building. In addition to the auto repair garage, the applicant desires to display for rent 4 U -Haul trucks and 4 trailers. The display will occur on an area located east of the building and well off of West 12th Street. There is adequate room for this limited display without interfering with the required parking and driveways. Staff feels that the limited display of 4 U -Haul trucks and 4 trailers is a reasonable use on this site but would recommend that the applicant install screening on that portion of the northern perimeter between the U -Haul display area and the adjacent residential property. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments b. The U -Haul display is to be limited to 4 trucks and 4 trailers which are to be kept in an area east of the 2 r May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4814-A building which does not interfere with the required parking and driveways. C. There is to be no vehicle repair taking place outside of the enclosed building. d. There is to be no storage of inoperable or wrecked vehicles on the site. Those inoperable vehicles waiting repair may not remain on the premises longer than 30 days. e. Screening is to be installed along that portion of the northern perimeter between the U -Haul display area and the adjacent residential property. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer and Screening Comments outlined above. The Committee reviewed the site plan and determined that the paved area directly east of the building was an appropriate location for the U -Haul truck and trailer display. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved, subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff recommendation. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. K May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 16 FILE NO.: Z-5983 NAME: Zion Wheel Missionary Baptist Church - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 4411 East 38th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Zion Wheel Missionary Baptist Church; Edward Alexander, Pastor PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion of this existing, R-2 zoned church. The proposed two story expansion will consist of two offices, two classrooms and an enlarged fellowship room. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church site is located on the south side of East 38th Street, one block east of Jones Street; in the College Station Community. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: Zion Wheel is a small church which has been located in this predominately single family neighborhood for many years. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised primarily of small single family homes ranging from older single -wide mobile homes in a state of disrepair to moderately sized brick homes. The City limits line is at Jones Street, one block west of the site. The large area of vacant R-2 zoned property to the north of this site is currently under consideration for rezoning to I-2 to accommodate the American Freightways expansion. The proposed expansion of this small church should not affect its continued compatibility with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: No expansion of the sanctuary seating capacity is proposed through this application. As such, no increase in on-site parking is required. The church is currently using the Mount Nebo Street right-of-way as a parking lot. The right- of-way should be closed or a franchise obtained for use of the public right-of-way. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5983 4. Screening and Buffers: An upgrade in landscaping equal to the 25% building expansion is required. 5. City Engineer's Comments: a. Dedicate ROW per Master Street Plan. Construct improvements on 38th Street per Master Street Plan or apply to the City Engineer for a hardship In -Lieu contribution of 15% of the construction costs or seek a waiver or deferral from the Board of Directors. b. Close ROW on Mount Nebo or obtain a franchise for pavement on ROW. C. Provide Stormwater Detention Analysis for addition. The addition appears to be in excess of 500 square feet. If the expansion is over impervious surfaces and the increase in impervious surfaces is less than 500 square feet, state this in a letter to David L. Scherer, Public Works and seek a waiver of stormwater analysis by staff as allowed by ordinance. 6. Utility Comments: Little Rock Wastewater Utility reports a sewer main extension is required with easements. 7. Staff Analysis: Zion Wheel Missionary Baptist Church, a small church located in the College Station Community, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a two-story addition containing a kitchen and dining area, office space and two classrooms. No expansion of the sanctuary's seating capacity is proposed. The church property is surrounding on three sides by vacant, heavily wooded property. Two single family homes are adjacent to the south of the church site. The building addition is approximately 50 feet from the south property line and should have no effect on these adjacent homes. As is true of much of the College Station area, the streets abutting this site have never been developed or are in an extremely substandard state. 38th Street is comprised of a 40 foot right-of-way containing a 15 foot wide chip seal street. Mount Nebo Street has never been developed. The church has paved over the area of the Mount Nebo right-of- way and is using the public right-of-way as a parking lot. The conditional use permit process compels compliance with E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 16 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5983 the City's Master Street Plan including right-of-way dedication and street improvements. These issues, outlined in the City Engineer's Comments, must be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit for the church expansion. Staff is supportive of the request and feels that the expansion of this church building will not have a negative effect on the adjoining neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments b. Compliance with the Utility Comments C. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances including the required 25% upgrade in landscaping SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer, Utility and Landscape Comments outlined above. David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Staff, expounded upon the various comments made by his office concerning the adjacent streets. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the staff recommendation. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z-5982 NAME: Son of God Ministries Church and Day Care Center - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 2924 Ware Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Son of God Ministries/Pat Stewart PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the implementation of a day care center program utilizing the educational building of this existing R-2 zoned church and for the construction of new parking lots on the church property. The proposed day care center will have a maximum enrollment of 70 children, ages 6 weeks to 12 years. A three year deferral of the requirement to pave the proposed parking lot is requested. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church site is located at the northwest corner of West 30th and Ware Streets, south of the Broadmoor Subdivision. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This existing church has been located at this site for many years. The church occupies one full city block within a neighborhood which is primarily single family residential. In addition to the single family residences, the neighborhood also contains Southwest Junior High School and abuts Boyle Park. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing, one story church education building for the day care center. Since the applicant proposes to utilize one building of this existing institutional use and to provide much needed parking, the proposed day care center should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The church site currently contains only a gravel parking lot located at the southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes to construct two paved parking lots which will May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5982 serve the needs of both the church and proposed day care center. Once completed, the site will have paved parking for approximately 56 vehicles. The applicant is requesting a three year deferral of the paving requirement, during which time the existing, gravel parking lot will continue to be used by both the church and the day care. 4. Screening and Buffers: A 6 foot tall opaque screen is required between the parking lot and the residential property adjacent to the north. The new parking lots must be designed in compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer ordinances. Curb and gutter or another approved border is required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Provide screening along the south and east perimeters of the playground to protect those residences across 30th and Ware Streets. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Dedicate right-of-way on 30th and Ware Streets to 25 feet from centerline. Construct Master Street Plan Improvements on all three abutting streets or apply to the City Engineer for a hardship In -Lieu contribution of 15% of the construction costs or seek a waiver or deferral from the Board of Directors. Provide stormwater detention analysis. Driveways proposed are in conflict with the Ordinance; reduce number and relocate. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: Son of God Ministries Church, an existing church located on the R-2 zoned property at 2924 Ware Street, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the implementation of a day care program utilizing the church education building. In addition to the day care program, the church is seeking permission to construct two paved parking lots containing approximately 56 vehicle parking spaces. A three year deferral of the paving requirement is requested. During that three year period, the existing, gravel parking lot located at the southwest corner of the site will continue to be utilized. The proposed day care center will have a maximum enrollment of 70 children, ages 6 weeks to 12 years old. The proposed hours of operation are Monday -Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5982 The church is an established institutional use in this residential neighborhood and the applicant is proposing to utilize existing church facilities. The site currently has no on-site parking which meets City Code standards. There is only an unimproved, gravel parking lot located at the southwest corner of the site. The applicant proposes to construct properly paved and landscaped parking. Staff believes the proposed establishment of a day care center within this existing church is a reasonable use for the site which will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed new parking should benefit the neighborhood by providing approximately 56 properly paved and landscaped on-site parking spaces. As such, staff is supportive of the application. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. b. c. d. e. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances Screening is to be placed along the south and east perimeters of the playground area to protect those residences located across 30th and ware Streets. The maximum size ground -mounted sign for the day care center is to be limited to that allowed in office and institutional zones. Any lighting proposed for the parking lots is to be low-level and directional, aimed away from adjacent residential properties. Staff also recommends approval of the requested three year deferral to allow continued use of the existing gravel parking lot. At the end of three years, the required paved and landscaped parking lots are to be constructed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant was not present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer and Landscaping/Screening requirements outlined above. David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Staff, explained in greater detail the comments from his office. He pointed out some changes 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5982 that needed to be made in the design of the proposed parking lots and driveways. He recommended that two small parking lots proposed for the southeast corner of the site be eliminated as they were in violation of the Ordinance. Bob Brown, Plans Review Specialist, discussed briefly the required landscaping and screening. He pointed out a deficiency in the interior landscaping for the proposed parking lot at the southwest corner of the site. The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that a revised site plan had been submitted which addressed staff concerns. There were no other outstanding issues. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. The Commission also approved the requested 3 year deferral to allow continued use of the existing gravel parking lot. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 18 FILE NO.: Z-5984 NAME LOCATION• OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Montessori Day School - Conditional Use Permit 5201 Jerry Road Dorothy B. Moffett A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the conversion of this R-2 zoned residential structure into a private school with an enrollment of 20 students and a staff of 6. The property is located on the east side of Jerry Drive, one lot south of Cantrell Road. 2. compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is located at the northern fringe of a large area of single family residential zoning which extends to the south and east of the site. There are several nonresidential uses in the immediate vicinity, along the Cantrell Road corridor. A bank is located adjacent to the north of the site and a church is located across Jerry road to the west. A small shopping center is located on the north side of Cantrell road, one block west of this site. The residentially zoned property adjacent to the south is vacant and heavily wooded. The property itself is in an area designated as Transition Zone on the land use plan. With attention to properly screening the adjacent residential property, this proposed, small private school should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The proposed pre-primary elementary school with an enrollment of 20 students and 6 employees requires 6 employee parking spaces and loading/unloading spaces to accommodate 2 vehicles. The proposed site plan provides 7 parking spaces and an adequate area for loading/unloading with stacking space. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5984 4. Screening and Buffers: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. The buffer along the southern perimeter varies from 3-4 feet in width; a 5 foot buffer is required. A six foot tall opaque screen is required on perimeters adjacent to residential property. A protective border is required to protect all landscaped areas from vehicle traffic. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Dedicate right-of-way on Jerry Road to 30 feet from centerline. Master Street Plan improvements are required on Jerry Road, including widened street width, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Provide storm water detention analysis. Driveways should have a 15 foot minimum radii and must be marked as one-way entrance and exit with signs and pavement markings. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the use of this existing, R-2 zoned residential structure as a private, pre-primary elementary school (Montessori School). The school will have a maximum enrollment of 20 children and will employ 6 employees. The hours of operation will be Monday -Friday primarily 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. However some children will be present until 2:15 p.m. and fewer might remain until 5:00 p.m. depending on parental need. The applicant is proposing to construct a circular driveway, taking access off of Jerry Road, and 7 parking spaces. The structure will be extensively remodeled with the primary external change being the addition of a drive through canopy on the front of the building. Although the surrounding area is zoned primarily residential, single family homes are located adjacent only to the rear of the site. The residentially zoned property adjacent to the south is vacant and heavily wooded. Other uses in the area include a church, a bank and several commercial uses located along Cantrell Road. The applicant proposes to place the playground in the rear yard of the property. The playground area must be screened from adjacent residential property and staff feels that a 6 E t May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5984 foot, opaque wood fence should be placed on the eastern perimeter of the site to screen those single family homes adjacent to the east. With attention to property screening the adjacent residential property, staff feels that the proposed private, pre-primary elementary school is a reasonable use for this site. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments b. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the reduction in the southern land use buffer to 4 feet, since the adjacent property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. C. The playground area is to be screened from the adjacent residential properties. The screening on the eastern perimeter must be a 6 foot tall, opaque wood fence designed in "good -neighbor" fashion so that the finished side of the fence faces outward. d. Signage is to be limited to that allowed in office and institutional zones. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant, Dorothy Moffett, was present. Staff presented the item and outlined the City Engineer, Landscaping/Screening and Signage Comments noted above. David Scherer, of the City Engineer's Staff, gave greater detail on the comments from his office. A discussion followed concerning screening of the playground. The Committee felt that a 6 foot, opaque wood fence should be installed on the eastern perimeter. The applicant agreed to this provision. The Committee felt it was reasonable to allow a reduction in the southern perimeter land use buffer to 4 feet since the adjacent property is vacant and heavily wooded. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5984 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Commission was informed that the applicant had requested a deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting to allow time to resolve a Bill of Assurance issue. The applicant's request for deferral was received three working days prior to the meeting rather than the 5 days required by the Commission bylaws. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The vote also included a waiver of the bylaws to allow the 3 day notice of deferral. One objector appeared at the meeting after the Consent Agenda had been approved. Virginia Miles, of #2 Westchase Drive, was informed of the Commission's action in deferring the item to the June 27, 1995 meeting. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 19 FILE NO.: Z -3789-E NAME• LOCATION• Agape Church - Conditional Use Permit 701 Napa Valley Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Agape Church PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion of this existing, R-2 zoned church's parking lot. Three hundred -seventy-two spaces exist on-site currently. The applicant proposes to construct an additional ninety-eight spaces. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The church is located at 701 Napa Valley. The proposed parking expansion is located on that portion of the church site which is at the southeast corner of Napa Valley Road and St. Charles Blvd. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed parking lot expansion will be located on a small portion of the large Agape Church property. Most of the parking lot will be located on two church owned lots of the Turtle Creek Residential Subdivision. In addition to the church itself, surrounding uses include a large single family residential neighborhood and several multifamily developments. The applicant proposes to enclose the new parking lot with a six foot tall brick fence and to take access from the existing church site. With attention to screening the parking lot from the adjacent residential properties, the development should be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The church sanctuary has a seating capacity of 2,300, requiring 575 parking spaces under current ordinance standards. The site now has 372 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to construct an additional 98 spaces, giving a total of 470 on-site parking spaces. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3789-E 4. Screening and Buffers: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A six foot tall, opaque screen is required between the parking lot and the adjacent residential property to the east. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Provide stormwater detention analysis. Obtain a grading permit. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: Agape Church is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an additional 98 space parking lot on R-2 zoned property it owns at the southeast corner of Napa Valley and St. Charles Blvd. A small portion of the new parking lot is located on the principal church site (Lot 1, Agape Country Subdivision) but the majority of the parking lot will be built on two church owned lots of the Turtle Creek Subdivision and the area currently occupied by the Turtle Creek Drive right-of-way. These two lots are contiguous to the church site and once enclosed with the proposed brick fence, will be indistinguishable from the overall church site. Access to the expanded parking lot will be through the church site, with no direct access onto the street from the new parking lot. In 1986, the Planning Commission and Board of Directors approved a three-phase parking lot expansion for Agape Church which included parking in the same area proposed through this application. Throughout the several expansions which have taken place on the site during the subsequent 9 years, this particular parking lot expansion has never been developed. As in the previous application, the applicant proposes to remove the pavement, curb and gutter of Turtle Creek Drive and to extend the improvements of St. Charles Blvd. across the former right-of-way. To date, no application to abandon the Turtle Creek Drive right-of-way has been filed. Approval of this application should be conditioned upon the abandonment of Turtle Creek Drive. With attention to properly screening the nearby residential properties, staff believes the proposal to be a reasonable use for this 0 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3789-E property which should have a minimal impact on the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: a. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinance b. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments C. Abandonment of that portion of the Turtle Creek Drive right-of-way located between Lots 127 and 144, Turtle Creek Addition d. The proposed 6 foot brick fence which is located on the perimeter of the parking lot is to be solid and opaque to provide maximum screening of the adjacent residential properties. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Tim Daters was present representing the applicant. Joe White was present earlier but left prior to discussion of this item. Staff presented the item and noted the Landscape and Engineer Comments outlined above. In response to a question from staff, Mr. White had stated earlier that the proposed 6 foot brick fence would be solid and opaque. Mr. Daters was advised that any Planning Commission approval would be conditioned upon the abandonment of the Turtle Creek Drive right-of-way. Mr. Daters was also asked to determine the location of the Turtle Creek Subdivision sign in relation to the proposed parking lot. The Committee determined that there were no other outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Joe White was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. A letter signed by the owners of property immediately bordering the area of the parking lot expansion had been submitted to the K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 19 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -3789-E Commission. In the letter, those individuals stated that they did not oppose the parking lot expansion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 4 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 20 FILE NO.: Z-5985 NAME: LOCATION• Jackpot Carwash - Conditional Use Permit 9520 North Rodney Parham Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Jackpot Incorporated by Hilly Copeland PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion of one bay of an existing self-service car wash to accommodate an automatic car washing mechanism. The property is zoned C-3. A variance is requested to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 8.5 feet. The ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 15 feet for this property. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The property is located at the northeast corner of North Rodney Parham and Treasure Hill Roads. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: This existing convenience store and car wash is located in an area which is primarily zoned C-3 and multifamily. All adjacent property is zoned C-3 and is occupied by a variety of commercial uses. A large area of multifamily dwellings is located to the north of the site. Directly across Rodney Parham Road is an area of C-3 zoning and the Treasure Hill Residential Subdivision is located beyond that. This minor addition to an existing car wash bay will not affect the compatibility of this site with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: The site is paved nearly from property line to property line. There is adequate parking and vehicle stacking space including the pump islands, car wash bays and vacuum islands. C May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5985 4. Screening and Buffers: All adjacent property is zoned C-3. No additional buffers or screening are required. 5. City Engineer's Comments: Construct handicap ramps. This site is currently discharging free product petroleum into the municipal storm sewer. Enforcement of municipal code provisions is pending. The owner is under a Consent Administrative Order to remediate. The Department of Pollution Control and Ecology should approve any work prior to the City issuing any permits for this project. 6. Utility Comments: No comments 7. Staff Analysis: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the expansion of one bay of an existing, self-service car wash to accommodate an automatic car washing mechanism. The property is zoned C-3 and is occupied by a convenience store with gas pumps and the 4 bay car wash. The small expansion proposed would add 10 feet to one of the car wash bays. No other expansion or improvements are proposed. A variance is requested to allow the car wash addition to have a rear yard setback of 8.5 feet. The Ordinance requires a 15 foot rear yard setback. The adjacent property is also zoned C-3. The reduced rear yard setback should have no effect on the adjacent property. There is currently ongoing litigation regarding petroleum discharge from this site into the City's storm sewer system. The City Engineer's Office and the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology are involved in this issue. Staff feels that it is appropriate to tie this application to the resolution of the illegal discharge issue. If approved, no building permit should be issued for the car wash expansion until the City Engineer's Office determines that the petroleum discharge issue has been resolved. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: a. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments K May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 20 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-5985 b. No building permit is to be issued for the car wash expansion until the City Engineer's Office has determined that the petroleum discharge issue has been resolved. Staff also recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance for the car wash expansion. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicant, Billy Copeland, was present. Staff presented the item and noted the City Engineer's Comments outlined above. Mr. Copeland stated that he was working with the City Engineer's Office and the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology to resolve the petroleum discharge issue. The Committee determined that it was appropriate to tie the issuance of a building permit to the City Engineer's approval of a resolution of the discharge issue. The Committee determined that there were no other issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. The City Engineer's Office had determined that the expansion of the car wash bay was not related to the petroleum discharge issue at the convenience store site. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved subject to compliance with the City Engineer's requirement that handicap ramps be constructed. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. The Commission also approved the rear yard setback variance. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 21 FILE NO • G-23-232 Name: North Pierce Street Right-of-way Abandonment Location: The undeveloped 145 feet of North Pierce Street between Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive Owner/Applicant: Audrey Henry and J. Gaston Williamson Request: To abandon the platted but undeveloped north 145 feet of North Pierce Street right-of-way between Grandview Drive and Scenic Drive. STAFF REVIEW• 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Need for This Right-of-Wav The right-of-way has never been developed. There is no public need for this portion of right-of-way. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this portion of undeveloped right-of-way. Need for Right-of-way on Adiacent Streets There is no need for right-of-way on adjacent streets. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain The portion of the Pierce Street right-of-way proposed for abandonment has never been developed. The property is heavily wooded, sloping up from Scenic Drive. 5. Development Potential The lots on the west side of Pierce Street are platted in an east to west pattern. Once the right-of-way is abandoned, the southern 2 lots will have no direct street frontage. The applicant has mentioned the possibility of replatting the 3 lots and the west half of the abandoned right-of-way into lots with a north to south pattern, fronting onto Scenic Drive. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-232 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The right-of-way has never been developed. The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. Abandonment of the right-of-way will have no effect on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. Both adjoining property owners are parties to the abandonment. The Heights Neighborhood Association was notified of this action. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. There will be no effect on public services or utilities. 9. Reversionary Rights Reversionary rights extend to the adjoining property owners, David and Kimbra Henry and James Gaston Williamson. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of this unused portion of public right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be beneficial to the real estate tax base. There will be no effect on the public welfare and safety. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this portion of undeveloped right-of-way subject to the area of the right-of-way being retained as a utility and drainage easement. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) The applicants were not present. Staff presented the item and noted that the area of the abandoned right-of-way is to be retained as a utility and drainage easement. The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 21 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-232 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Stuart Holcomb was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. One letter of opposition had been presented to the Commission. Staff informed the Commission that one of the applicants, J. Gaston Williamson, had requested that the item be deferred to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the June 27, 1995 Commission meeting. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 22 FILE NO.: G-23-233 Name: Fairview Road Right -of -Way Abandonment Location: Northeast corner of Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road Owner/Applicant: The Irwin Company by William Wiedower Request: To abandon a 330 (approximate) square foot portion of the Fairview Road right-of-way located at the northeast corner of its intersection with Pleasant Ridge Road. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need for This Right-of-Wav There is no public need for this portion of public right-of-way. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan reflects no need for this portion of right-of-way. 3. Need for Right -of -Way on Adjacent Streets The applicant will dedicate to the City a 45 square foot piece of property at this same corner to clean up the corner right-of-way line and allow for a proper corner radius. 4. Characteristics of Right -of -Way Terrain This small portion of right-of-way is at the northeast corner of Fairview Road and Pleasant Ridge Road which are currently being improved to Master Street Plan standards by the applicant as part of a development on the adjacent property. 5. Development Potential Once abandoned, this portion of right-of-way will be added to the property of a new office development on the adjacent property. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-233 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect The adjacent property is currently being developed as a small office park. The required street improvements are being made to Fairview Drive and Pleasant Ridge Road. Abandonment of this small portion of right-of-way will clean up the corner right-of-way line and will have no effect on the neighborhood. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced. The Pleasant Forest Neighborhood Association was notified of this action. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities There will be no effect on public services or utilities. The area of the abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a utility and drainage easement. 9. Reversionary Rights Reversionary rights extend to the owner of the adjacent property, The Irwin Company. 10. Public welfare and Safety Issues Abandonment of this portion of right-of-way and the applicant's dedication of right-of-way at the same intersection will eliminate an irregular corner right-of-way and allow for a proper corner radius. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of this portion of Fairview Drive right-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of the abandoned right-of-way is to be retained as a utility and drainage easement. 2. The applicant is to dedicate an approximately 45 square foot piece of property at the same corner to allow for a proper corner radius. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Jim VonTungeln was present representing the applicant. Staff presented the item and noted the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. E May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22 (Cont.) FILE NO.: G-23-233 The Committee determined that there were no outstanding issues and forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Jim VonTungeln was present representing the application. Cloie Morgan, of #10 Cedar Branch, was present in opposition to the item. After discussing the item with Mr. VonTungeln, Ms. Morgan no longer was opposed to the abandonment. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that there were no outstanding issues. There was no discussion and a motion was made to recommend approval of the abandonment subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 3 May 16, 1:sy5 ITEM NO • 23 Z-5896 Owner: Applicant: Location : Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Rose Bickerstaff M. F. Rolih, Jr. by Michael T. Gosby Black Road and Piggee Street (One Block) Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Elderly housing 2.0 acres Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Vacant, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question is found in the Pankey neighborhood, and located approximately 3 blocks south of Arkansas State Highway No. 10. The request is to rezone the site from R-2 to R-5 for elderly housing, a total of 56 units. (R-5 Urban Residence allows a density of 36 units per acre). The acreage is situated on the west side of Pankey and bordered by four platted rights-of-way. The site is made up of twelve 50 foot lots and a 10 foot alley (one complete block). At this time, there are two structures on the northern most lots, adjacent to Piggee Street. The balance of the property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The predominant zoning in the immediate area is R-2 and, in fact, the entire Pankey neighborhood is zoned R-2. To the northwest, there is some C-3 zoning and a PCD area. The land use is primarily single family residences, including new subdivisions to the south and southwest. In the Pankey neighborhood, the land use is single family, with some minor nonconforming uses. The uses found on the nonresidential land are mini -storage units and a small-scale commercial center. Throughout the area, there are vacant parcels and lots. A R-5 rezoning or any multifamily reclassification of this block in conflict with the adopted plan. The land use May 16, 1_>5 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 Z-5896 (Cont.) element of the River Mountain District plan identifies the site for single family use; a majority of the Pankey neighborhood is shown as single family. The current plan does recommend a low-density multifamily area north of Pankey Avenue, between Black Road and Wells Street, and another area directly north of Highway 10. The plan also shows a small multifamily area east of Ives Street. This land use concept has been reinforced by the most recent planning effort for the neighborhood, the Donaghey/Pankey plan. The Donaghey Project worked closely with the Pankey community throughout the planning process and relied on the residents' input for direction. The plan has been endorsed by the Planning Commission, but still has not been acted on by the Board of Directors. In addition to the multifamily areas, the Donaghey document also includes a conceptual plan for an elderly housing project on the west side of Black Road. None of the neighborhood or district -wide plans have ever identified the Black Road/Piggee Street block for any use other than single family. Because of the plan and other factors, staff cannot support the R-5 request for the block in question. All the planning studies have recommended other sites for multifamily use and no justification has been provided to change the direction of the plan by reclassifying this particular site. Also, the property is somewhat removed from more desirable multifamily locations and the necessary infrastructure for such an intense development is not in place. Rezoning the block to R-5 would be a significant departure from the adopted plan and could have a very negative impact on the future of Pankey. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the River Mountain District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends Single Family. While the plan does call for low density multifamily to the north, this request is too intensive and too far removed from the major roads. Staff cannot support such an intensive residential use in this location at this time. ENGINEERING COMMENTS if the rights-of-way for the four streets are deficient, dedication of additional right-of-way will be required. The Master Street Plan standard is 25 feet from the centerline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning. 2 May 16 , i _ 15 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 Z-5896 (Cont.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 1, 1994) Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred because of a possible notice problem. The item was added to the Consent Agenda, and the Commission deferred the issue to the December 13, 1994 hearing. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 13, 1994) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the item needed to be deferred again because all the required property owners had not been notified. As part of the Consent Agenda, the R-5 request was deferred to the January 24, 1995 meeting. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 24, 1995) Staff reported that the item needed to be deferred because all the necessary notice information had not been submitted. As part of the Consent Agenda, the rezoning request was deferred to the March 7, 1995 hearing. The vote was 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. (Staff told the Commission that this would be the last deferral.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 7, 1995) Staff reported that a written request to withdraw the rezoning had been submitted by the agent for the applicants. As part of the Consent Agenda, the Planning Commission voted to withdraw the R-5 rezoning. The vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff briefed the Commission on the issue and said the person who requested the withdrawal was not authorized by the applicant to make such a request. Staff said they had received correspondence from the applicant and Willard Proctor, Jr. asking that the R-5 rezoning be placed back on the Commission's agenda. The Planning Commission was informed that Mr. Proctor would be representing and speaking for the applicant. Staff said that the request had been discussed with Stephen Giles, City Attorney's Office, and it was determined that Mr. Proctor's request could be placed on the Commission's agenda as a reconsideration. The bylaw provision for 3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 23 Z-5896 (Cont.) reconsideration was reviewed with the Commission and it was pointed out that it would take an unanimous of all the members present to reconsider the issue (place the item on the next appropriate agenda). There was additional discussion and comment were offered by Mr. Proctor. The Planning Commission then voted to reconsider the rezoning request. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent for reconsideration. (The rezoning item was placed on the May 16, 1995 agenda.) The Commission also waived any additional filing fees. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant, Willard Proctor, Jr., was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff briefed the Commission on the request and indicated that staff's position was still denial of the R-5 rezoning request. Willard Proctor, Jr. then addressed the Commission. Mr. Proctor discussed the proposed development and said there was neighborhood support for the project. Mr. Proctor then described the project, an elderly housing complex, and presented a graphic. He discussed the facility and said it would be a "community within a community" and would provide all the needs of the residents. Mr. Proctor continued by discussing the plans for the property and reminded the Commission of the support in the neighborhood. Mr. Proctor then told the Commission that the developer was willing to attach restrictions or conditions to the R-5 rezoning. There was a lengthy discussion and comments were offered by the staff and various members of the Commission. Willard Proctor spoke again and said a PD for the site would be possible. Mr. Proctor also said the property was owned by Pankey residents and the developer would be a California corporation. After some additional comments, Mr. Proctor requested a deferral to the June 27, 1995 meeting. The Commission then voted to defer the item to the June 27th hearing. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 0 May 16, 1_.,5 ITEM NO.; 24 Z-5978 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: John Mattingly John Mattingly 5017 Baseline Road Rezone from R-2 to C-3 Commercial 0.91 acres Commercial (nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family and Vacant, zoned R-2 South - Church, zoned R-2 East - Commercial and Vacant, zoned R-2 and C-3 West - Single -Family and Vacant, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS 5017 Baseline Road is occupied by a furniture store, a nonconforming use, and the request is to rezone the site from R-2 to C-3. The property is situated at the southeast corner of Baseline and Sunset Lane which is approximately one-half mile east of Geyer Springs. There is one building on the property and it has 170 feet of frontage on Baseline Road. Zoning in the area is R-2, R-4, 0-3, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2, PRD and PCD. In the immediate vicinity there is some C-3 zoning on both sides of Baseline Road. The existing land use is mixed and includes single family, multifamily, mobile home parks, commercial and churches. A number of the uses are nonconforming and there are some undeveloped parcels in the neighborhood. The rezoning of this tract to C-3 is compatible with the area and will not affect any of the nearby properties. The reclassification will recognize a well-established commercial location, and C-3 conforms to the adopted plan. There are outstanding issues associated with this rezoning request. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 24 Z-5978 (Cont.) LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site in the Geyer Springs East District and the plan recommends commercial. The C-3 request is in conformance with the plan. ENGINEERING COMMENTS 1. The eastern portion of the existing building lies in the regulatory floodway and the remaining property in the floodplain. Present or future tenants or owners of this property are prohibited from making alternations without specific approval of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Public Works Department. The limits of the floodway and floodplain must be shown on the submitted surveys. 2. Dedication of right-of-way is required for Baseline and Sunset. The additional rights-of-way are: • 5 feet for Baseline Road • 5 feet for the southern portion of Sunset Lane STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the C-3 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance, and the item was placed on the Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the C-3 rezoning request. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. 2 l May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 25 FILE NO.: S-980 NAME: MORRIS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT -- TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: At the northeast corner of Chenal Parkway and W. Markham St. DEVELOPER: ANDREW J. MCDONALD, BISHOP ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESES OF LITTLE ROCK C/o L. Dickson Flake Barns, Quinn, Flake & Anderson, Inc. P. O. Box 3546 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-6161 AREA: 17.619 ACRES ZONING• C-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 VARIANCES REOUESTED: None BACKGROUND: ENGINEER: THE MEHLBURGER FIRM P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 375-5331 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Commercial On June 1, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for the subject site. On February 8, 1994, at the request of the property owner, the Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for the Preliminary Plat. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes an additional one-year time extension for the preliminary plat, saying that: "We are working with prospects that plan to develop the property in the near future." A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for an additional one-year extension of time for the approved preliminary plat to be effective, and to be binding on the Commission. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site remains undeveloped. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-980 The existing zoning is C-3. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: There were no comments required or submitted on this issue. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 31-94(e) states: "A preliminary plat approved by the Planning Commission shall be effective and binding upon the Commission for twelve (12) months, or as long as work is actively progressing, at the end of which time the final plat application for the subdivision must have been submitted to the planning staff. Any plat not receiving final approval within the period of time set forth herein or otherwise conforming to the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void, and the developer shall be required to submit a new plat of the property for preliminary approval...." E. ANALYSIS• The developer asserts that he is progressing with the sale and development of the property. It is customary to grant extensions of time, as long as there is an indication that there is progress which will lead to being able to submit the final plat. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the requested time extension. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 27, 1995) Since no site pian issue was involved, staff had told the applicant that his attendance at the Subdivision Committee meeting was unnecessary. Staff informed the Committee of the requested time extension, and the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff recommended approval of the requested time extension, and the item was included on the Consent Agenda for approval. The time extension was approved with the approval of the Consent Agenda with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 0 absent. 2 May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 26 FILE NO.: Z -2477-H Name: Steve's Speed and Truck Accessories - Conditional Use Permit Time Extension Location: 7301 Geyer Springs Road Owner/Applicant: Steve Haynes Recxuest: Three year extension of previous Planning Commission approval to use an unimproved, gravel parking lot and to have an area of outdoor storage. STAFF ANALYSIS• At its August 24, 1993 meeting, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit which allowed for the expansion of this existing auto part sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation business. The property is zoned C-3. In addition, the Planning Commission approved the continued use of an unimproved, gravel parking lot and an area of outside storage for a period of 18 months, ending February 24, 1995. The fenced in area of outside storage is located at the rear of the lot and consists of two semi -trailers being used for the storage of merchandise and a small area where pickup truck bedliners are stored. For security purposes, the applicant was not required to enclose the outside storage area with an opaque screen. The 18 month period has passed and the applicant has been unable to fund the approved building expansion. He is now requesting a 3 year extension of the previously approved use of the gravel parking lot and outside storage. Staff feels that there should be a lesser time approved for continued use of the unimproved, gravel parking lot and outdoor storage. Staff is not supportive of a 3 year, open storage yard on this C-3 zoned property. Staff can support an additional 18 month extension beginning February 24, 1995 and ending August 24, 1996. The August 24, 1996 date is three years after the original Planning Commission approval. The maximum allowable time authorized for the exercise of conditional use permits is three years from the date of approval. Required permits must be obtained within that allotted period or the conditional use permit can be revoked. In this case, August 24, 1996 is the last day of the allotted three year period from the date of original approval. May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 26 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -2477-B STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an 18 month extension allowing the continued use of a gravel parking lot and outdoor storage. The 18 month extension is to run from February 24, 1995 to August 24, 1996. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: The applicant was not present. background of the issue. (APRIL 27, 1995) Staff presented the item and the After a brief discussion, the Committee determined that a further 3 year extension was inappropriate and that some lesser length of time should be considered. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to staff's recommendation that an 18 month extension be granted. In response to a question from Commissioner Adcock, Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained that the 18 month extension would expire on August 24, 1996, the date that the conditional use permit will expire unless the applicant has obtained permits to begin construction on his building. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and an 18 month extension (February 24, 1995 to August 24, 1996) was approved. The vote was 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 2 � f May 16, 1995 ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: Z -4985-C NAME: MID -AMERICA CENTER -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD LOCATION: On the north side of W. Roosevelt Rd., between S. Wolfe and S. Battery Streets DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: FRED RODGERS Samuel L. Davis 2407 S. Battery St. S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. Little Rock, AR 72206 5301 West 8th. Street 374-9844 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 1.88 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Day Care and Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 CENSUS TRACT• 11 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: I$] The applicant proposes an amendment to an existing PRD in order to make substantive changes to the originally approved master site plan and to the allocation of uses for the various buildings on the site. The original PRD, approved by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1988, then by the Board of Directors on April 19, 1988, in Ordinance No. 15,440, approved a master site plan with three principal buildings: an existing 2 -story home facing Wolfe St. containing 6,400 square feet; a new single -story building at the corner of Wolfe St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 11,300 square feet; and, a new single -story building at the corner of Battery St. and Roosevelt Rd. containing 4,200 square feet. The existing 2 -story building, combined with the 11,300 square foot building was planned to be a residential care facility. The 4,200 square foot building was to be a child care center. Subsequent to that approval, the residential care use was implemented in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building facing Wolfe St.; however, the two new buildings were not built. Then, on December 12, 1989, the Commission heard a request to amend the PRD to change the use in the existing 2 -story, 6,400 square foot building from residential care to child care. Included with the request was a proposal to add a 24 foot by May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4985-C 20 foot, 2 -story addition to the building as a new entry/drop-off point for the child care facility, and to provide parking and an access drive to the facility in the area formerly shown as the location of the new buildings. The Commission approved the request and the Board of Directors amended the PRD in Ordinance No. 15,801 on January 16, 1990. Now, in the current proposal, additional land is being included in the PRD site, and the uses are proposed to change. An additional residential lot which faces Battery St. is to be included in the PRD. This lot contains a duplex residential structure. It is to be used for offices for the facility on one side of the duplex, and continue to be used as a residence on the other. The existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. is to continue being used for a child care facility on the first floor, but, in addition, a residential care facility is proposed to be implemented on the second floor. A new addition which joins these two buildings, straddling what was once an alley way, is proposed to be 2 stories, and is to contain child care space on the first floor, with residential care and residential uses on the second. The applicant states that a residential care facility is one which is used to provide, for pay and on a 24-hour basis, a place of residence and boarding for persons who need a place to live. This use includes providing a place for daily activities for residents for planned group recreation and socialization. The facility, then, will include lounge and living areas, a central dining facility with a fully equipped kitchen, bath facilities, laundry, administrative offices, and an apartment for the facility manager. Residential care for 70 persons is proposed. The child care center is proposed to serve 150 children, 2 1/2 years of age and above. The required number of employees to tend to this number of children, according to the applicant, is 12, plus a director and administrative secretary. This facility will include a multi-purpose area for activities, dining, and sleeping, and will have a kitchen, toilets for adults and children, an isolation health room, and an administrative office. The applicant proposes to provide 86 parking spaces. The entire site is to be fenced for security purposes. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is sought for a revision to an existing PRD to: 1) include additional land area in the PRD site and amend the approved PRD site plan; and 2) change the allowable uses approved for the PRD. An existing residential lot and 2 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4985-C residential duplex structure is proposed to be included in the PRD site. A new addition is proposed to connect the existing 2 -story building which faces Wolfe St. with the existing duplex which faces Battery St. The existing duplex is to continue to be used for a residence on one side; the second side of the duplex is to be used for administrative offices for the facility. The 2 -story building, with its 2 -story addition, is to be used for child care on the first floor and residential care on the second floor. The second floor is also to contain a facility manager's apartment. Parking for 86 vehicles is provided, as is a drop-off/pick- up drive for the child care facility and parking for residents and staff. The site is to be fenced with chain link fencing for security purposes. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is made up of a 1.66 acre tract currently designated as a PRD, combined with a 50 foot wide residential lot currently zoned R-4. On the 1.66 acre site is a single 2 -story, 10,640 square foot facility presently being used for child care on the first floor only. The second floor is unused. Except for this building, the tract is vacant, or is used for access drives and parking. The 50 foot wide lot has a duplex residence located on it. All surrounding property is zoned R-4. There is an elementary school directly to the west of the site. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works reports that a sketch grading and drainage plan must be provided. Before issuance of a building permit, engineering must be provided with plans for stormwater detention. Water Works reports no objections. Wastewater reports that the proposed addition (lying between the two existing buildings in the abandoned right-of-way, but in which the easements were retained) lies over an existing 6" sewer main. The sewer main will have to be relocated by the owner and the easement abandoned, or the building will not be permitted to occupy the alley easement. Site Plan review reports that a 6' high opaque wood fence with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area from the residential property to the north. An upgrade in non -conforming landscape area will be required equal to the amount of the expansion. 01 t May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4985-C Building Codes reports that the foundation for the proposed building, which is to connect the 2 existing buildings, was constructed without a permit and without an inspection. The foundation will not be accepted. The project, as proposed, will be well over the allowable floor area as provided in the Fire Prevention Code, and the proximity of the new building alongside an existing structure will be in violation of the same Code. The Code issues listed could be remedied, but would require extensive effort, such as providing exterior fire separation and protection of both existing and new construction; four hour rated fire wall construction in several locations; and installation of a fire sprinkling system. Arkansas Power and Light Co. notes that there is an existing power line in the alley. They report that an easement must be provided; however, since the easement was retained when the alley was abandoned, the easement they request is still in existence. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plan as submitted. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the plan as submitted. The Fire Department will require that the 12 foot wide drive on the north side of the existing daycare building, extending to the north side of the new addition, be increased to provide 20 feet of drive access for fire equipment. Landscape review comments that a 6 foot high opaque wood fence, with its structural supports facing inward, or dense evergreen plantings, will be required to screen the proposed expanded area and the remodeled residence from the residential properties to the north and south. An up -grade in non -conforming landscaping will be required equal to the amount of the expansion, and the remodeled residence will be required to comply with the landscaping ordinance. Land Use review reports that the site is in the Central Business District. The adopted land use plan recommends single-family use for this site. Due to the location next to an elementary school and the visibility problems along Roosevelt, as well as the surrounding residential use, staff does not recommend commercial for the site. If, however, the use is a residential housing situation and child and Adult daycare, these uses of the site should not cause significant adverse effects. 4 f May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Parking for rooming houses, boarding houses, etc., the requirement is 0.5 spaces/sleeping accommodation. The applicant states that the facility is to serve 70 residents. This would require 35 parking spaces. Additionally, there are two apartments provided. These require an additional 2 spaces. Parking for child care requires 1 space per employee, plus loading and unloading spaces at a rate of 1 space for each 10 children. The proposal is for 150 children, and there are 14 employees. The parking which is required is 29 spaces. The total required spaces is 66; 86 spaces are provided. The existing head -in parking spaces off Battery St. which serve the existing duplex must be altered so that vehicles do not back directly onto Battery St. Adequate maneuvering space must be provided on-site for vehicles to park, back, and then to enter Battery St. driving forward. The Building Codes division has cited some serious concerns. This division reports that the applicant proceeded to construct the concrete foundation for the proposed 2 -story addition which will connect the existing 2 -story building with the existing 1 -story duplex residence without a permit, and that this foundation is placed over a utility easement. The alley in this location was abandoned; however, the utility easement was retained. The applicant must, first, seek the abandonment of the utility easement, relocating any needed utility lines at his own expense, then, he must do what is required by Building Codes to gain approval of the foundation for the proposed building. E. ANALYSIS: The proposed use is not in conflict with the adopted land use plan, and can be supported from a land use perspective. The applicant has begun the process of abandoning the utility easement, and has stated that he will bear the costs of relocating the utility lines, as required. He has stated that he will do what is needed to satisfy Building Codes. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD, subject to the applicant: 1) being successful in his application to abandon the utility easement in the closed alley and relocating any utilities in the easement to be abandoned; and, 2) subject to meeting the Building Codes, landscaping, and other comments noted above. 5 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 18, 1994) Mr. Fred Rodgers, the applicant, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and presented the site plan. The Committee reviewed with Mr. Rodgers the comments contained in the discussion outline. Discussion centered around two issues: the issue raised concerning building the proposed addition in an alley where the utility easements had been retained; and, the issue raised concerning beginning construction on the building addition without a building permit. Staff indicated, also, that Building Codes is concerned that the applicant may be proceeding with a plan without fully realizing what will be required by the Building Code as far as fire walls, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would begin immediately to abandon the utility easement in the alley, would do what is necessary to relocate any utilities in the closed alley, and would meet the Building Code requirements. The Committee forwarded the application to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 6, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant has begun the process to abandon the utility easement in which the applicant has placed a building foundation, and that the applicant has stated that he will relocated the utilities which are in the easement at his own expense. He has, staff related, also assured staff that he will conform to Building Code requirements in the construction of the building addition. With these matters being dealt with, staff recommended approval of the amended PRD, subject to the utility easement matter being resolved, and subject to Building Codes approving the construction. The item was included on the consent agenda for approval, and the amended short -form PRD was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. STAFF UPDATE: Subsequent to the September 6, 1994 Planning Commission hearing, but prior to the item being heard by the Board of Directors, staff realized that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of all property owners within 200 feet and that the owner had been notified of the proposed action as required by the Commission Bylaws. It was confirmed with the applicant that, indeed, the required supplemental notification had not been accomplished. Therefore, the previous action by the Commission was taken without the applicant conforming to the instructions and Bylaw requirements, and the item must be heard at a public hearing, after proper notification, again. 0 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO • Z -4985-C PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 29, 1994) Staff reported that the applicant had not complied with either the Commission Bylaw requirements concerning having a licensed abstractor provide a certified list of property owners within 200 feet of the site, nor the Bylaw requirement that all property owners within 200 feet be notified of the meeting. Staff reported that the list of property owners presented to staff was only a computer print-out from the Pulaski County Tax Assessor's office of residential property owners within the 2400 -block of S. Wolfe St. and S. Battery St., and that this list did not include, as a property owner, the Little Rock School District which owns the block across S. Battery St. from the Mid-America Center site, and the list does not include property owners on the south side of W. Roosevelt Rd. and the north side of W. 24th. St. who are within 200 feet of the site. Staff recommended that the item be deferred until the January 10, 1995 Commission hearing to allow the applicant to correct the notification deficiencies. The recommendation for deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 10, 1995) Staff reported that the applicant had met all the requirements for notification of property owners within 200 feet of the property, and that there are no remaining unresolved issues. Staff recommended approval of the PRD, subject to: resolution of the utility easement and the Building Code issues. Staff reported, though, that a petition, signed by several neighbors, and a letter from a neighbor had been delivered to staff, objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, the applicant, was present, but indicated that he would rather hear the comments of the opponents prior to his making his presentation. Mr. A. C. Mitchell, indicating that he was representing some of the neighbors who were unable to be present at the Commission meeting, and who had signed the petition which had been delivered to staff, urged the Commission to oppose the rezoning. He related that the neighbors are concerned about the increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic, noise, and the presence of activities associated with the proposed 24-hour residential care aspect. Mr. John Lewellen said that neighbors to the applicant's Center had called him expressing their opposition to it. He said that there is strong concern about the increased number of clients who will be served by the applicant's operation, and that there is concern that property values will be negatively affected by VA f May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 27 (Cont-) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C approval of the added use for the PRD. He said that there will be an increase in vehicle traffic, and that access to Roosevelt Rd. will be made more difficult. He stated that the proposed activity is no more than "just another boarding house", to serve the homeless. This will commingle homeless people with children in the daycare facility, and this, he maintained, could cause problems. Mr. Rodgers explained that he currently has a daycare facility which serves 110 children, and that he wants to add a residential care facility for older children and young adults. He explained that the building is a large building, and that only the first floor is being utilized by the daycare facility; that there is over 6,000 square feet on the second floor of the building which is not being used, and could serve the residential care use which he proposes. Commissioner Daniel asked Mr. Rodgers for information on the ages of clients being served and which would be served with the additional use. Mr. Rodgers said that he proposed that the upstairs area be used for residential care of 3 year old children to 17 year old youths; that the residential care be on an emergency basis, when referred by other agencies or when homeless young people came to the facility in need of a place to stay, and until the Social Service Agency could evaluate the clients and place them in appropriate care facilities. Commissioner Willis asked Mr. Rodgers to explain how long clients would live in the facility. Mr. Rodgers replied that the State would determine the length of stay for the child; that the State could determine that the child should stay in the facility for a year or longer. Chairperson Chachere asked if the clients are criminals, or if they are children who are referred by social service agencies who are being removed from homes by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he does not house criminal; that, indeed, the State refers clients for temporary housing until they are evaluated, but the facility could also be used to house the client on a more permanent basis if the State refers the client to their facility. He added, though, that, a child could be accepted for care if they came in off the street. Commissioner Adcock asked for an explanation of the supervision which is proposed for the clients. E:3 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C Mr. Rodgers said that the State sets the standards for supervision, and the number of staff persons would be determined by the State. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Rodgers if he would restrict access by clients to only those referred by the State. Mr. Rodgers responded that he would not want to do restrict access; that sometimes children who are on the street need a place to stay, and the facility needs the flexibility to take them in on an emergency basis. Commissioner Walker said that he wanted assurance that the facility is not a boarding house, but is and remains the type facility which the applicant proposes. He asked that the conditions be placed on the approval of the PRD that the State, County, or some appropriate governmental agency evaluate the clients within 24 hours of their becoming clients. Mr. Rodgers concurred with this condition. Commissioner Rahman asked for clarification on the aspect of the application concerning 24-hour care. Mr. Rodgers explained that he was seeking approval for the child care facility to keep children on a 24-hour basis. He said that some parents work at night, and the child daycare does not provide them with the child care they need. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Rodgers to confirm that: 1) he currently has a traditional daycare facility which serves children from about 3 years of age to 12 or 13 years of age; 2) he will submit to the State for licensing for a residential care facility which is planned to serve children ranging in age from approximately 3 years old to 17 years old; 3) the two uses are located in the same building, but they are or would be on separate floors and have different entrances; 4) the children to be served by the residential care facility are housed on an emergency and temporary basis pending their evaluation by the State and placement in foster or other care, as determined by the State; and 5) any children who come to the facility on their own, not referred by the State or other agency, would be evaluated by the State within 24 hours of their arrival at the Center, and placed according to the requirements of the State. Mr. Rodgers confirmed this characterization of his application, as amended. Mr. Lewellen again expressed concern that many of the clients to be served would be coming from the criminal justice system, and that this element is inappropriate to the established residential neighborhood. 0 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the amended PRD, and the motion carried with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the request, indicating that the item had been referred again to the Commission by the Board of Directors. Staff indicated that the applicant had amended his request at the Board of Directors hearing, this being after the Commission had approved the uses to be permitted in the PRD, and had, in the amendment, substituted some office and commercial uses. This substitution of uses had followed a neighborhood meeting where the neighbors had objected to the emergency care facility for "at risk" and homeless young people, and had suggested the neighborhood office and commercial type uses be substituted. Staff reported that the applicant, Mr. Rodgers, had proposed a list of possible uses taken from the 0-1 and C-1 list of uses, and that staff had edited this list to include: church; clinic (medical, dental, or optical); community welfare or health center, convent or monastery; day nursery or day care center; lodge or fraternal organization; nursing home or convalescent home; office (general or professional); photography studio; private school, kindergarten, or institution for special education; school (business); school (public or denominational); studio (art, speech, drama, dance, or other artistic studio); barber and beauty shop; eating place, limited to ground floor or existing buildings, with a maximum of 800 square feet, sit down facility without drive-in or drive-thru, with carry out permitted but no delivery service permitted. Staff reported that the applicant had requested approval of both the originally approved PRD uses (child day care and residential care of young persons between the ages of 3 and 17), as well as approval of the cited alternative uses. Staff recommended the reaffirmation of the original Commission action for the child day care and youth residential care, and a recommendation of approval of the list of alternative uses. Staff reported that staff had contacted by phone both Senator Bill walker and Mr. John Lewellen, to relay to them the applicant's request and the date of the re -hearing before the Commission. Staff related that both had expressed concern about the uses proposed, and that Mr. Lewellen had said that he would contact neighbors and urge them to be present for the Commission hearing. (It was noted that there was no one present at the hearing to speak in opposition to the proposed amendment.) Mr. Cedrick Rodgers, representing the applicant, said that he needed approval of the request so that he could go back to the Board for their action on his request. 10 May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4985-C A motion was made and seconded to reaffirm the Commission's action of January 10, 1995 to permit the child day care facility and youth residential care facility, plus to permit the amendment of the list of office and commercial uses cited. The recommendation for approval passed with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 11 cc 0 W cc W 0 z 0 0 z z Z J CL ws annom noun 31 0m00000vov IMEMOMMENNEM MoaovMMON ooanv000v©vv ov0000voo©ao MONOMMvovvo S ovoovvoaevo �: 000voo ._��©vv ��v�o�oov ME ■ENIMEMEME OMMEMEMEMEN REEMEMEM■■■. 1■ REMENEOMMMO o........... Llqmmkwmmmmmm M...,........ o....... E....,....... ,... o.....� mm REMMEMBEEMN MEMEMEREMM MEMEEMEMEMM MMMEMISEEM MEMEM■NEWEE■ MENVAMMEMEN MENAMEEMEMEN M............ o........... Mi WOOMMMOMMO, 1 Q Q cm p co co W Q Z i 1■ IIO�■ 1 Q Q cm p co co W Q Z i May 16, 1995 SUBDIVISION MINUTES There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. t-,fJC- 1 L a ./4' l5 Da et Chairman