Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_10 14 1986subLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION HEARINGS SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 14, 1986 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were read and approved. III. Members Present: J. Schlereth B. Sipes J. Nicholson W. Rector W. Ketcher, Chairman D. Arnett I. Boles IV. Members Absent: W. Riddick, III R. Massie D.J. Jones F. Perkins V. City Attorney Present: Steven Giles SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES October 14, 1986 Deferred Items: A. Pine Shadows "Long -Form PRD" (Z -4719) B. Dennis Smith - Subdivision Ordinance Waiver to Receive Water Meter Preliminary Plat: 1. West Markham Land Addition 2. Yarberry Acres 3. Whispering Pines 4. Natural Resources Replat (McHowe Subdivision) 5. Heatherbra Subdivision Site Plan Review - Multiple Building: 6. Shell Site Plan Review Conditional Use Permits: 7. Word of Outreach Church Site Plan Review - Zoning: 8. Safecare Hospital (Z- 4372 -B) Planned Unit Development: 9. Los Cuartos "Long -Form PCD" (Z -4746) 10. Birch Creek Apartments "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4747) 11. Smiley "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4741) 12. Shell Blakely "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4743) 13. Houser "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4742) 14. Chelsea Square Revised PRD SUMMARY OF SUBDIVISION ACTIVITIES - CONTINUED October 14, 1986 Conditional Use Pe knits: 15. Fellowship Bible Church (Z- 4745 -A) 16. Geyer Springs First Baptist Church (Z- 4255 -A) 17. Central Church of the Nazarene (Z -4738) 18. Bethel Freewill Baptist Church (Z -4740) 19. West 65th Street (Z -4744) 20. Kanis Road (Z -4745) Site Plan Review /Building Line Waiver: 21. Texaco at Markham Building Line Waiver: 22. Texaco at Old Forge ether M� *terms• 23. PUD Extension 24. Water Main Extension 25. Request for Private Street Extension 26. 27. Plan Amendment 28. Jenkins Building Line Waiver October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: Pine Shadows Addition East side of Geyer Springs Road immediately north of the Rock Island Railroad First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton 3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Building N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375 -9010 Telephone: 372 -4930 AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 156 ZONING: "R -2" to PRD PROPOSED USES: Residential /Mobile Home Park VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal 1. The construction of 46 mobile home lots on two phases on 8.72 acres. 2. Project Data a. Phase I SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY 1 14'x45' 1 2 151x55' 4 3 14'x60' 10 4 14'x68' 15 5 24'x68' 3 b. Phase 2 Data not provided. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued C. Parking 60 spaces (two /unit) 3. Park and Recreation area - 30,00 square feet (900 /unit) 4. Outside storage area - 1,650 square feet (50 /unit) B. Engineering Comments: 1. 20' maximum radius on private street. 2. Stormwater detention required. 3. Talk with Traffic Engineer, Henk Koornstra, for his comments. C. Analysis This is a request for PUD approval for a mobile home park. It is located on property that the Commission recently considered request for rezoning and subdivision of the land to provide for a mobile home park. The applications were approved by the Commisison, but denied by the Board. Staff supported them. Principle objectives with persons living outside the City. In his submittal letter, the applicant stated that this proposal reflects "a mobile home park with clustered units in -lieu of the normally expected parking lots for house trailers." He feels that this concept for development provides the tenants with a family home environment, addresses an urgent need in the City, and addressed a situation that is forcing some of the City's residents to live in the County against their will. The applicant is asked to identify differences between this plan and the previous one; identify the "clustered units" referred to; and indicate whether lot sales will be involved. If they are, this proposal will need to comply with "R -7" requirements. Staff is concerned that resubmission of this plat violates a Board policy against reconsidering October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff asked that the City Attorney brief the Commission on the requested legal opinion. Assistant City Attorney Steve Giles felt that the Commission would be in violation of Board policy if they chose to hear this item, since there were no changes in the application and it could be considered as a reapplication. He did state, however, that the Commission was not precluded from hearing the item, but unanimous consent would be required to place it on the agenda. Staff reported that it was informed by the City Manager that he would recommend to the City Board that the item not be considered. Staff then stated its recommendation as being against reconsideration since the item should be considered with some finality. Mr. Randy Frazier represented the developer. He felt that the application as filed was not a reconsideration of the original application, nor a reapplication; but it was a new application in PRD form. He argued that it should be heard in "by- right" and that the Commission's Bylaws in Article 57(b) only states unanimous consent if an application is reconsidered. He felt that a PRD application is totally different because of more stringent controls that can be placed on the proposal. Assistant City Attorney Steve Giles reiterated his position that unanimous consent was required. A motion in favor of hearing the reapplication of Pine Shadows was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 7 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Deferred Matters - Subdivision Variance This item is on the agenda for purposes of bringing to the Commission the request of Mr. Dennis Smith, a resident of 4005 Montgomery Road in the Taylor Loop Community. Mr. Smith desires to request of the Commission that it extend to him a total variance of the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance as concerns the three lots in which he has interest. Mr. Smith's lots lie at the south end of Montgomery Road approximately 1/4 mile south of Taylor Loop Road. These lots are somewhat less than six acres in area total with existing residences in place. This matter was brought to the attention of the staff when reviewing a request of the Water Works to extend a water main eastward off Montgomery Road to serve the rearmost lots. The Planning staff rejected the water main extension and advised the Water Works and the owner that a subdivision plat was required. Staff held meetings with Mr. Smith, the City Manager and other involved persons in an attempt to resolve this item without public hearing. We were unable to achieve a middle ground which could produce a proper platting action; therefore, Mr. Smith was instructed to bring his case to the Commission and present his arguments/ PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff view of this issue is that some platting action should occur on the subject property so as to provide permanent access for both vehicles and utilities to the rearmost lots. We believe there is a solution to this problem without the creation of additional streets or excessive financial burden on the several owners. Our recommendation is a denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: At its meeting on August 28, 1986, the Subdivision Committee discussed this issue at length with Mr. Smith. There were several offerings made as to resolution of the problem. The Committee instructed Mr. Smith to review the possibility of obtaining the services of a civil engineer for purposes of a reviewing a potential three -lot plat. He was further advised that if he so desired, he could come to the meeting on September 9 and present his argument to the full Commission. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86) The applicant was not in attendance. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion of the circumstances of this request, the Commission voted on a motion to defer the matter for a period of 30 days in order to allow the applicant to determine his course of action. The vote on the motion was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (10 -2 -86) The staff reported on its conversations with Mr. Smith since the last Planning Commission meeting on September 9. The report briefly stated that the applicant and his neighbor, Mr. Ledford, continued to pursue water meters without involving the remedies offered by both staff and the Subdivision Committee. Mr. Smith has furnished a letter to the Manager's Office through his neighbor, Mr. Ledford, requesting that administrative relief be granted. This action follows receipt by Mr. Smith of a letter from staff advising him that he had the right and opportunity to appear before the Commission again on October 14th and offer his request for variance. The staff is discussing this issue of enforcement, water policy and platting with the City Attorney's Office in an attempt to gain resolution of the problems we are experiencing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) Mr. Dennis Smith, the applicant and owner of the property, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The Planning staff made a brief presentation of the issue and a history. The staff explained the expected product from the subdivision of the property which would be a three -lot final plat to be recorded at the County Courthouse providing for proper title, lot numbers, easements, etc. Mr. Smith then offered a presentation in support of his request. He identified issues such as the mobile home lot on the north having received water at an earlier date. He offered additional history on his circumstance as to the lot sales and the arrangement of the parcels. Mr. Smith restated his October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued request that he be allowed to have a water meter and that Mr. Ledford, the other owner in this issue, also be provided with water service. His request is that he not be required to provide further platting, subdividing or even surveying of his lot but that he simply receive extension of water service. A general discussion of the request followed. A motion was made to approve the waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance requirements in order to obtain water meters. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 7 noes, 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: West Markham Land Addition LOCATION: South side of Markham Street, 1600 Feet West of Shackleford Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: West Markham Land Company Edward G. Smith and Associates c/o Brad Walker 401 Victory Street 2228 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 374 -1666 Telephone: 666 -4242 AREA: 6.36 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C -3" PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal /Request 1. Modification of an existing subdivision. 2. Modify lot line locations eliminating a lot or lots with staff review. 3. To allow encroachment of the south property line on drainage ditch, which will be corrected later to be at north line of ditch. 4. Maintenance of agreement between the developer and the City eliminating building setback requirements along the drainage ditch. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued B. Existing Conditions 1. Flat and located south of a major arterial. 2. Bounded by Rock Creek and single family to the south. 3. Currently subdivided into five commercial lots. C. Issues /Discussion Previous land use decisions by consent decree. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Analysis Staff feels that variances and agreements received previously should not be honored since the plat did not include the total amount of land area in this proposal. The City Attorney also needs to advise the Commission of court - determined land use issues that may affect this plat. The applicant is asked to show curb cuts and clarify the request to encroach on the north property line. Staff approves of the request for modification. F. Staff Recommendation Reserved until further info received. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant explained that the court order allowed for no rear setbacks on the site. He agreed to provide drives no closer than every 300 feet and have a minimum buildable area with 400 feet minimum width on lots. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to comments made. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 NAME LOCATION: DEVELOPER ENGINEER K.C. Development Corp. c/o 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 Yarberry Acres Approximately 300 feet west of Yarberry on the south side of Kerry Drive Civil Design, Inc. 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 Telephone: 666 -4418 AREA: 5.35 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 16 FT. NEW STREET: 485 ZONING: 11R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 5.35 acres into 16 lots for residential use. B. Existing Conditions Rural, single family area; contours range from 272 to 284. C. Issues/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Waivers: a. Curb and gutter improvements on Kerry Lane. The street dead -ends within a few 100 feet of the project and a significant extension is not likely due to floodplain and floodway considerations. Existing developments at both ends also limits the potential for future curb and gutter projects. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued 2. Austin Court be considered as a minor residential street with a 24 -foot width, back of curb to back of curb, in lieu of standard 27 -foot width. 3. On -site drainage. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Staff Recommendation Approval. The Planning staff has no problems with the waivers, provided the Engineering staff approves. A previous waiver of street improvements for a two lot subdivision was approved across the street from this project. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The application was discussed. Engineering had no objection to the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff recommended approval, subject to Engineering's approval of the street improvements waiver. Mr. Wahrmand requested that the Bill of Assurance be revised to reflect a minimum of 1,200 heated square footage. The developer agreed to do this. A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 NAME: Whispering Pines Subdivision LOCATION: Southwest corner of Chicot Road and Bunch Road r%vv7vr r1n L+n VX7t' T Al V Vn . Dillon Construction Co. Manes, Castin, Massey and 10421 West Markham, #220 McGetrick, Inc. Little Rock, AR 72205 2501 Willow Telephone: 224 -6035 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Telephone: 758 -1360 AREA: 72.5 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 121 FT. NEW STREET: 5000 ZONING: "R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family /Residential A. Proposal /Request 1. T- modify an existing plat. 2. a. Add a cul -de -sac to provide access to Lots 1 -4. b. Enlarge 15 existing lots. 3. Addition of a security /privacy fence along Bunche Road to help maintain country club atmosphere and security. B. Existing Conditions 1. Area developed as rural single family. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Double frontage lots on Coulter Lake Trail. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 D. Engineering Comments 1. One of the streets is incomplete in name only - it shows Whispering Pine - complete street name. 2. Whispering Pine Lanes goes into Tract D. Show either a cul -de -sac, hammerhead or a barricade at this location. E. Analysis David Hathcock reports the following street name conflicts: Whispering Pine Trail, Whispering Pine, Whispering Pine Drive, Whispering Pine Cutoff, Whispering Pine Lane, Whispering Pine Cove. The applicant has explained that the street addition requires the replatting of 15 existing lots in Castle Valley Subdivision, Phase I. The additional street would take up part of one lot and the remaining lots would be widened by approximately 10 feet and the depth would increase by 10 feet. This would help to maintain larger homes along the golf fairway. Staff does not oppose double frontage lots, provided a 10 -foot vehicle prohibition zone is platted. David Hathcock requests that all street names be picked and approved through his office. F. Staff Recommendation Approval. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW The applicant agreed to comply with staff's comments. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 NAME: Natural Resources Replat LOCATION: East side of Natural Resources Drive, north of 10310 Office Building DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Natural Resource Drive Mehlburger, Tanner and Assoc. Partnership 201 South Izard c/o Olan Asbury Little Rock, AR 72201 2228 Cottondale Lane Telephone: 375 -5331 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 663 -7005 AREA: 2.25 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "O -1" Applied for PROPOSED USE: Lot available for small office development A. Proposal /Request To plat 2.25 acres into three lots for office use. B. Existing Conditions Vacant area developed primarily as office. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Conditions of rezoning to be reflected on the plat. a. 50 -foot building line to the east - 25' of which to be used for parking and 25' of undisturbed area. If disturbed, this area is to be restored. b. Front building line is 15 feet. 2. Show contours on plat. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 4 - Continued D. Engineering Comments The property directly downstream from this subdivision has a flooding problem. Stormwater detention will be required for the subdivision since the total acreage is over two acres for the three lots. E. Analysis The applicant is asked to meet with Engineering concerning their comments regarding stormwater detention and to protect the single family area to the east by providing the requested buffer. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The application was discussed. The applicant agreed to comply with staff's recommendations and also provide a fence toward the east. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made for approval, subject to a letter from the developer agreeing to construct a good neighbor fence as property develops along the.entire width of the eastern property line. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Heatherbrae Subdivision Immediately north of Taylor Loop and Lacy Lane RNaTNRRP Woodhaven, Inc. Civil Design, Inc. c/o 1001 Fair Park Blvd. 1001 Fair Park Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72204 Little Rock, AR 72204 Telephone: 664 -4418 Telephone: 664 -4418 AREA: 26.6 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 69 FT. NEW STREET: 3,070 ZONING: 11R -2" PROPOSED USE: Single Family VARIANCES REQUESTED: On -site detention A. Proposal /Request 1. To plat 26.6 acres into 69 lots for single family use. 2. Phase II involves continuation of channelization of the south fork of Taylor Loop Creek. Final design of the channel improvements will be part of Phase II. "As- built" drawings will be submitted to the Department of Public Works upon completion of improvements and prior to the submission of the Phase II final plat. 3. Waiver requested due to: a. Project's proximity to the major drain and its relatively small size indicates that detention facilities would have little effect in reducing a peak flow on south fork. b. Major channel improvements proposed will provide more detention benefits through channel storage than would the small on -site detention facilities ordinarily required. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued B. Existing Conditions 1. Rural, single family area. 2. Land is flat; contours range from 296 feet to 319 feet. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. The northeast portion of the property lies within Master Parks Plan. 2. Engineering approval of waiver request. 3. Clarify ownership /status of property in the northwest corner. 4. Technical noncompliance: a. Lot 8 - Inadequate depths. b. Heatherbrae - Inadequate centerline radius. C. Nonradial lot lines throughout plat. d. 30 -foot building line on Taylor Loop needed. e. Sidewalks to be provided on Taylor Loop and Heatherbrae. 5. Area designated as school site in Highway 10 Land Use Plan. D. Engineering Comments 1. Redesign the entrance of the subdivision at Heatherbrae Circle to be a T- intersection as well as the first street off to the right. 2. Show the detention location and preliminary volume calculations. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued E. Analysis David Hathcock reports that there is a street name conflict with Meadow Court. A negotiated agreement from the City's Parks Department must be received before the plat is approved. The applicant is asked to redesign the plat according to issues mentioned. Quite a few lots are drawn at odd angles. The Ordinance requires radial lot lines, and 30 -foot building lines on collector streets (Taylor Loop). F. Staff Recommendation Reserved until plat is redesigned, and Engineering comments on the applicant's request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Engineering explained that no waiver was needed if the applicant would oversize the channel. Redesign of the plat was discussed. It was felt that the lots in the area of Cove Court were too cramped and would not lend themselves to the same type of development as the remainder of the plat, and that the unusable space in the northwest corner should be made a part of Lots 8 and 9. Staff reported that they would be in touch with the School District about their plans for the site. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Shell Site Plan Review LOCATION: 2420 Bragg r1vuvr_rvovD . Ft7f_T10V VD . Pete Tracy Finley Williams 2420 Bragg 210 Victory Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR Telephone: 376 -3505 REQUEST: Site Plan review of a multiple building site A. Proposal 1. Multiple building site plan review of 1.79 acres to be used as a service station, small office and car wash. 2. Provision of 20 parking spaces. B. Existinq Conditions Property located east of I -30 with existing service station and office building on -site. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Revise site plan by: a. Indicating name of proposal. b. Indicating chart with exact square footage of each building and parking. C. Showing vicinity map with names of boundary streets. 2. Communication building built without permit. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued D. Engineerinq Comments Show the proposed drive as one -way from the back of the property toward the service road. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to Engineering comments. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a revised plan and address the staff's comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval. The vote was 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 NAME: Word of Outreach Conditional Use Permit (Z- 708 -A) LOCATION: The south terminious of Broadway OWNER /APPLICANT: Word of Outreach /Joe D. White PROPOSAL: To construct a church in three phases. The phases are: Phase I - a 20,000 square feet church /school auditorium (capacity 400) and 95 paved parking spaces; Phase II - a 14,000 square feet expansion of the existing church /school auditorium, and an additional 48 parking spaces plus 4 spaces for buses; and Phase III - a 16,000 square feet family life center addition. This development will be on 3.01 acres of land that is zoned "R -4." ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location This property is located at the end of a collector street (Broadway) and is adjacent to an arterial street located to the west (Arch Street). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed church is located on 3.1 acres of land that is potentially compatible with the surrounding single family area. This property is a rear yard relationship for all the adjacent single family areas except for two side yard relationships on Broadway and two side yard relationships on Arch Street. Proper screening and landscaping will enhance the compatibility of this project. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Two access drives are proposed to this site. One access is a 40 feet drive on Arch Street and the second access will be taken from Broadway. Total parking will be 147 spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers This site plan includes landscaping areas. 5. Analysis The staff feels that a church use can be compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, have some concerns. The single family use adjacent to the access drive on Arch Street needs to be screened by a fence at least to the rear lot lines of the adjacent single family uses. The side yard relationships of the two single family uses on Broadway are actually above grade - landscaping should be provided adjacent to these side yards. The applicant also needs to supply further details about the proposed school and dimensions of the building and setbacks. What kind of school is proposed, and what is its proposed capacity. Staff also questions the necessity of the proposed steeple height being 60 feet. Finally, is the alley being proposed as an additional access? 6. City Engineering Comments No adverse comments. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes dimensions of the buildings and their setbacks, screening fences, and additional landscape areas; and (2) provide additional information on the proposed school, height of the steeple and the use of the alley located at the southeast corner of the site. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant stated that the school was kindergarten through eighth grade but did not know the proposed maximum capacity. The applicant also stated that they proposed to use the alley located at the southeast corner of the property for access and that they would improve and landscape it as necessary. The applicant further agreed to reverse the angular parking on the Arch Street drive and either redesign and /or post signage on the circular access located adjacent to Broadway in order to reduce possible confusion. The Wastewater Department stated that sewer is available and that capacity contribution is required. The Water Works stated that the proposed building is larger than 15,000 square feet and that a sprinkler system is recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) The applicant was present. There were a number of objectors present represented by Attorney Mr. Bennie O'Neil. Mr. O'Neil read a statement opposing the conditional use permit on the following grounds: (1) the type of use or ministry of the church and the apparent instability (financial and four different locations of the church in the last three years); (2) increased noise and traffic in the neighborhood; and (3) potential drainage problems (on -site Springs). Mr. Joe White and Mr. Robert Smith (Pastor) spoke in behalf of the project. They stated that the proposed capacity of the private christian school would be 200. Mr. Smith stated that the church begin May 5, 1981, and had a current congregation of 125, and that their ministry would not require any residential use of the proposed property and that no formal alcohol or drug rehabilitation program would exist on -site. The staff stated that they recommended approval of the proposal and had received a revised site plan. The staff also stated that they had received one phone call against, two informational calls and one call favoring the proposed conditional use permit. Mr. Smith stated that the church owned the property and had bought it October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued from the City of Little Rock. Mr. Smith further stated that they had held two neighborhood meetings prior to the purchase of the property and that the City had told them that the property was zoned properly for a church use. The Commission wanted to know about the sale of the property to the church. The staff stated that they had no knowledge of the sales arrangement. It was determined that the Department of Human and General Services had handled the transaction. The Commission requested that the staff obtain information concerning the sale of the property and that the neighbors and the church meet to determine if their differences could be resolved. The staff also asked the church and neighbors to determine whether or not access should be allowed via the existing alley from Spring Street. The Commission then voted 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent to defer this item until the November 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: Safecare Hospital Site Plan Review (Z- 4372 -B) North of the intersection of Mabelvale West Road and Otter Creek East Boulevard Safecare Company, Inc. /Harwood K. Smith and Partners PROPOSAL: To construct a 125 bed hospital building (one- story, two -story and three - story) and an office building (15,000 square feet) as well as a total of 454 paved parking spaces on 29.75 acres of land that is zoned "O -2. ANALYSIS This site has been previously approved for a hospital location. The new site plan includes the required parking but should be revised to include a 25 feet landscape area adjacent to Mabelvale West Road. The plan also needs to be revised to delete the future development areas and to specify the number of stories proposed in the medical office building. The uses should also be specified in the medical office building. Finally, the applicant should provide a legally current survey of the entire property. CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) The hospital road that accesses the property on Mabelvale West Road at Otter Creek East Boulevard should be aligned with Otter Creek East Boulevard, also check the alignment of the eastern access drive. (2) Forty -five feet right -of -way dedication is required for the length of the property on Mabelvale West Road. (3) Show detention pond locations and preliminary volume calculations. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 (4) Boundary street improvements are required along Mabelvale West Road. Half of a 60 feet (five -lane cross section) street is required on the majority of the length; however, a possibility for a left turn lane and widening for the intersection area at Otter Creek East Boulevard may also be required. (5) Please contact the City Traffic Engineer for coordination of designing the access drive and street improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes a 25 feet landscape buffer along Mabelvale West Road, the number of stories, the proposed accessory uses of the medical office building, deletes the future development area, and provides a legally current survey; and (2) comply with the City Engineering Comments numbered 1 through 5. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The applicant stated that the proposed medical office building would be three stories in height and that a proposed play area (recreational) would be located adjacent to the northwest corner of the hospital building. The applicant also agreed to submit a revised site plan and all the required additional information to the staff by October 10, 1986. The City Engineer revised its recommendation No. 4 to state that half of a five -lane cross section street is required for the entire length of the property. The Wastewater Utility stated that sewer was available and that capacity contribution would be required. The Water Works stated that on -site fire protection would be required and that an acreage charge would apply. Finally, the staff stated that Southwestern Bell had requested an easement. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant including the proposed medical office building being five stories in height. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Los Cuartos Second Addition LOCATION: Northwest corner of I -630 and Barrow Road AGENT: ENGINEER: Charley Baker (375 -9131) Smith, Roberts, Johnson, Inc. Henderson Properties, Inc. 3140 West Britton Road, Suite 4C 3800 North May, Suite 500 Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: 405 755 -7094 Telephone: 405 949 -9100 AREA: 5.887 Acres NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "R -2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Hotel /Commercial A. Proposal /Request 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 1. PCD approval of the site, currently zoned "R -2" for use as a motel and other "C- 2/C -3" uses. 2. Consideration on the basis of the following development regulations and design requirements. a. Tract 1 - Restriction to motel or hotel. - Height restriction of two stories or 35 feet. -Site proof screening along common boundary between Pennbrook Addition and Tract 1. - Landscaped open space buffer a minimum of 20' wide along the northern /westhern boundaries of Tract 1 to include the planting of Decidous and Evergreen trees at 25' minimum spacing with no parking, drives or obstructions permitted. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued b. Tracts 2, 3, 4 and 5 - "C -2" Shopping Center District uses. - Clinic, car wash, daycare, eating place with or without drive -in, food store, health studio or spa, hotel, office, service station, theater. - "C -3" Commercial uses. -Bank or savings and loan, barbert /beauty shop, convenience store with pumps, florist shop service station and vehicle repair. - Building setback in "C -3." or obstructions permitted. -Site proof screening installed along the Penbrook Addition boundary. - Landscaped open space buffer a minimum of 20' wide along northern boundary. - Building setback of Tract 2 where it abuts Tract 1 to be a minimum of five feet from the lot line. - Building setback of Tract 5 as it abuts Tract 4 should be a minimum of five feet from lot line. 3. Approval of the following uses: Tract 1 - Motel - 120 rooms. Tract 2 - Convenience store - 30,000 square feet. Tract 3 - Fast food restaurant - 1,750 square feet. Tract 4 - Quality restaurant - 1,900 square feet. Tract 5 - Fast food restaurant - 1,800 square feet. 4. Access: Two access points along John Barrow. 5. Parking: Tract 1 - 141 spaces. Tracts 2 -5 - 91 spaces. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued B. Existing Conditions 1. Zoning is currently "R -2." The property is bounded on the north and west by Pennbrook Addition, a single family subdivision. Henderson Jr. High is east across Barrow Road and the I -630 highway right -of -way is to the south. 2. Site has 450 feet of frontage on Barrow Road and 630 feet on I -630. 3. Site has 50 percent tree coverage and falls toward the northwest to a drainage ditch which flows north on the east sides of the Pennbrook Subdivision. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Consideration of site plans on Tracts 2 -5 on an individual basis as they are sold. 2. Traffic. 3. Appropriateness of use proposed. 4. Drainage problems. 5. Visibility /buffer from neighborhood. 6. Proximity to school. D. Engineering Comments None at this time. E. Analysis Staff is supportive of the motel and one other commercial activity only. The applicant is asked to eliminate Lots 2, 4 and 5 and provide a 100 -foot strip along the north and west, present a grading plan for review by Planning and Public Works. Landscaping should and proposals for preservation of existing trees should be shown. Please add infill plantings for screen in a 100 -foot area and some type of fast growing plants. Staff is opposed to the location of a gas station on the site. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Engineering reported that the traffic analyses submitted by the developer would still be studied and that the northern entrance be redesigned. The Committee felt that any development to the property should not involve the hillside. It was also felt that the site was overbuilt and the plan proposed "major surgery" to the hillsides. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for deferral was made so that the applicant could get together with the neighborhood and try to work out some differences. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 10 NAME: Birch Creek Apartments "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4747) LOCATION: 5908 Geyer Springs (Lot to north also included DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: Creative Landscape, Inc. James Culberson 5908 Geyer Springs Little Rock, AR 72209 Telephone: 562 -0862 ENGINEER: Ed Campbell c/o 5908 Geyer Springs Little Rock, AR 72209 Telephone: 562 -0862 AREA: 1.6 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 208.5 ZONING: "C -3" to PRD PROPOSED USES: Apartments This item was removed from the agenda due to insufficient filing. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Bryon and Linda Smiley 5011 N. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Telephone: 664 -2340 Smiley "Short -Form PCD" Northwest corner of Van Buren and "B" Street Brooks and Curry, Inc. P.O. Box 897 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Telephone: 372 -2131 AREA: 68.33 x 150 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -3" (Single Family) PROPOSED USES: Antique /Gift Shop A. Proposal /Request 1. To reclassify property currently zoned for single family ( "R -3 ") to PRD (Planned Residential District) for use as an antique and gift shop. 2. To construct a new driveway and four parking spaces with gravel or wash gravel. 3. To expand existing structure of 1,100 square by 181 square feet. 4. To use five rooms for display with an addition to be occupied by a disabled friend of family. Hours will be Tuesday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., with some items to possibly be on display at this time. B. Existing Conditions Predominantly single family area with an office PCD to the south. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued C. Issues/ Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Nonconformance to the Heights /Hillcrest Plan. 2. Limit to encroachment of nonresidential uses and to residential area. D. Engineering Comments Close the existing gravel driveway and construct curb and gutter at that location. E. Analysis Staff does not favor the approval of this plan due to its noncompliance with the Heights /Hillcrest Plan. The major concern remains as previously explained when the office PUD to the south of this was approved, which is stopping the encroachment of nonresidential uses into the area. Staff feels that the plan differs from the office PCD project since it proposes what is usually an "C -1" use with display of merchandise. The applicant should clarify whether the parking lot will be gravel or asphalt. F. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The issue was identified as that of land use. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. lie presented the proposal and made statements relative to his position that the use would not be detrimental to the area. Staff felt that commercial zoning should not go any further north. A motion for approval was denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 6 noes, & 5 absent. The reason for denial was indicated as a fear of adverse effects to the area from the proposed use. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: Shell Blakely "Short -Form PCD" (Z -4743) LOCATION: 2408 Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: Shell Blakely Andrew Hicks P.O. Box 38 2510 South Broadway Searcy, AR 72143 Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: 372 -4825 AREA: 2 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "I -2" PROPOSED USES: Convenience Store /Car Wash /Service Station A. Proposal /Request 1. PCD review of a site in order to: a. Rezone the property for commercial uses. b. Receive multiple building site plan review. C. To unify a number of individual lots into a one -lot replat for more efficient usage. d. To receive a variance from the "C -3" rear yard setback of 15 feet. Five feet is requested to allow a more effective use of the narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the property abutting the railroad right -of -way. e. To relocate a drainage easement from under the proposed conveience store. f. To receive curb cut approval. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued 2. Development will consist of a convenience store with 2,576 square feet, a four bay car wash, and an autombile service related building with 2,600 square feet. Proposed parking consist of 18 spaces. 3. The proposed buildings will incorporate masonry and stucco materials very similar to the shopping center to the west. 4. Construction of a new lane on Cantrell as proposed by the Master Traffic Plan. B. Existing Conditions Triangular shaped piece of property that is bounded on the north by the Chicago -Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right -of -way and on the south by Cantrell. Existing uses include a service station, car wash and a convenience store. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Owner wants to discuss deeding property to the City at no cost. D. Engineering Comments 1. Decrease the radius at the intersection of Cantrell and Riverfront. 2. Close the first driveway from Cantrell on Riverfront Drive. This will allow more parking adjacent to the convenience store area as well as a system providing better access to the site. E. Analysis Staff views this as an attempt to improve an existing commercial site. The applicant is asked to be more specific about the future building. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The application was discussed by the Committee. Engineering reported that the applicant would bear one -half of the cost of building a lane due to the City's signal improvement project at Riverdale. He was asked to get with Engineering regarding curb cuts and parking. He agreed to give more information on the use of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. No one objected. The revised plan was submitted which eliminated one curb cut and specified the future building as a Quick Lube or liquor store. Staff recommended approval of this plan, subject to redesign of the parking area if the future building is used as a Quick Lube. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 NAME: Houser "Short -Form PRD" (Z -4742) LOCATION: Northeast corner of 30th and High Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Wilton and Gladys McFadden Brooks and Curry 2624 Cross P.O. Box 897 Little Rock, AR North Little Rock, AR Telephone: 375 -4157 Telephone: 372 -2131 AREA: 105.2 - 90' NO. OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R -4" PROPOSED USES: Sixplex A. Proposal /Request 1. To provide six 2- bedroom units with 780 square feet each. Parking will consist of nine cars with no access from 30th Street and landscaping will be to the City's Code. B. Existing Conditions Commercial uses along High. C. Issues / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Density. 2. Location of screened dumpster. 3. Redesign of building location to provide a 20 -foot rear yard. 4. Landscaping. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 13 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Provide a turnaround on the west side of the parking lot. 2. To meet the parking space on the east side of the parking lot. E. Analysis Staff recommends redesign to allow more of a rear setback. The proposed density appears to overbuild the site. Only four units is recommended. The dumpster should be screened with materials similar to that used in construction of the buildings. Landscaping should be shown. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee discussed staff's recommendations with the applicant. It was decided that the structure should set back at least 15 feet from High Street. It was determined that density for this proposal was 28 units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approval, subject to Engineering's approval of site distance and building line modified to 30 feet only in the area of Lot 2. A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to Engineering's approval of site distance and building line modified to 30 feet only in the area of Lot 2. The vote was: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 NAME: Chelsea Square Revised PRD LOCATION: North side of Hinson Road across from Marlow Manor DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Richard Cone Manes, Castin, Massey 78 Eldorado and McGetrick Little Rock, AR 2501 North Willow Telephone: 227 -7063 North Little ROck, AR 72114 Telephone: 758 -1360 A. Request 1. To revise an approved PUD. 2. To provide a 30' setback on Hinson Road. B. Existing Conditions Mixed residential area. C. Issues /Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1. Clarification of proposal relative to unit details. D. Engineering Comments Ordinance requirements for site distance requires a 600 -foot site distance. Plan shows only a 230 -foot site distance due to proposed wall. Please contact Traffic to determine a position for wall to maintain setback. E. Staff Analysis Staff needs clarification of the proposal and submission details of units. F. Staff Recommendation Reserved until info received. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 14 - Continued G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW The applicant agreed to furnish further information. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion was made and passed for approval, subject to Engineerings approval of site distance and building line modified to 30 feet only in area of Lot 2. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER /APPLICANT: Fellowship Bible Church Conditional Use Permit (Z- 3745 -B) The southwest corner of Napa Valley and Hinson Road (12601 Hinson Road) Fellowship Bible Church /John Sewall PROPOSAL: To expand the existing church facilities in five phases as follows: Phase I - 150 parking spaces, outdoor classroom and walkway to Pulaski Academy; Phase II - worship center expansion (from 700 seats to 2, 000 seats), 120 parking spaces, 20,000 square feet learning center addition (basement and two - story), and an outdoor amphitheatre; Phase III - 10,000 square feet two -story learning center addition, 46 parking spaces and 6 pavilions; Phase IV - 10,000 square feet two -story administration building addition and 307 parking spaces; Phase V - an 18,000 square feet two -story (plus basement) youth ministry building. The church property is zoned "R- 2 " / "C.U.P. 1. Site Location Adjacent to two arterial streets (Hinson Road and Napa Valley Drive). 2. Compatibility with the Neighborhood The church property is abutted by single family use located across Hinson Road to the north, a church located to the south, office and single family to the east and an institutional use (Pulaski Academy) located to the west. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Three access drives serve this property (one on Hinson Road and two on Napa Valley Drive). The site contains 204 existing parking spaces with 623 additional spaces to be constructed in future phases. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The applicant proposes to use existing landscaping as well as heavy stands of existing trees. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does feel, however, that a 50' x 70' triangular buffer should be left intact in the southwest corner of the property. Two additional issues are: (1) is the sewer density transfer still in effect; and (2) a final plat needs to be executed. 6. City Engineerinq Comments (1) As you enter the new parking area off Hinson Road, immediately to the right, a lane should be constructed straight through about three parking spaces instead of parking. (2) It is suggested that the walkway to Pulaski Academy be installed in this space. (3) Contact the Traffic Engineer for design criteria. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes the 50' x 70' buffer located at the southwest corner of the property and the requested City Engineering revisions; (2) resolve the sewer issue; (3) execute a final plat; and (4) comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1 -3. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 15 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. The staff requested that the proposed walkway be constructed during Phase I and that the site plan be revised to show an opening to be made for a drive as indicated in City Engineering comments numbered 1. The applicant agreed to comply. The Water Works stated that two fire hydrants need to be installed within 275 feet of the building for fire protection. Also, sprinkler systems should be placed in the buildings over 15,000 square feet. Additional comments were: (1) AP &L facilities located under the proposed Phase III, Learning Center would need to be relocated; (2) the Water Works requires an additional easement; and (3) the Fire Department requires a minimum 20 feet width on interior drives. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant subject to the applicant submitting the appropriate legal description prior to it going to the Board of Directors for final approval. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 NAME: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z- 4255 -A) LOCATION: 57th Street and Geyer Springs Road (5615 Geyer Springs Road) OWNER /APPLICANT: Geyer Springs First Baptist Church /Bill Ruck PROPOSAL: To remove two existing single family structures and to construct 121 new parking spaces (in four phases). Also, to leave one single family structure which will serve as a residence for missionaries. Phase I - the street improvements along the north edge of 57th Street; Phase II 47 parking spaces; Phase III - 38 parking spaces; Phase IV 36 parking spaces and street improvements adjacent to the lot on the north side. The entirety of the property is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location Adjacent to a residential street (56th Street) and a private street (Daley). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed parking areas are abutted by the church on the south and west and by single family uses located to the north and east. The parking area will be compatible with appropriate screening and landscaping included. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Both proposed parking lots will be served by one access from 56th Street. A total of 121 parking spaces will be constructed. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued 4. Screening and Buffers The site plan contains landscaped areas. 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed parking area will be compatible provided the lots are properly designed, screened and landscaped. The staff would like the lots designed so that a 15 feet setback (landscaped) be allowed on 56th Street as well as Daley Street. A 6 feet screening fence should also be constructed on the north and west property lines of the Daley Street parking lot (Phase IV) and on the east line of the 56th Street parking lot (Phases II and III). The screening fences should begin at the 15 feet setback. Finally, all lighting should be oriented away from the single family areas. 6. City Engineering Comments )1) A backing turnout is required on the parking area adjacent to the fellowship hall. (2) Also a redesign of the parking layout for the same parking lot is recommended by the Traffic Engineer. (3) Contact the City Traffic Engineer for design criteria. (4) Stormwater detention is highly suggested. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan showing the six feet screening fences and the 15 feet landscaped areas as previously mentioned; and (2) comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1 through 4. October 14, 1966 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 16 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with the staff's recommendations. PLANNING - COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 NAMP! Central Church of the Nazarene Conditional Use Permit (Z -4738) LOCATION: The south side of Baseline Road just east of Loetscher Lane (5121 Baseline Road) OWNER/APPLICANT: Central Church of the Nazarene/ Dallas Hudspeth PROPOSAL: To construct six buildings (temporary /portable? - 3,372 square feet) for use as a christian school (K- 12th /150 capacity) within an existing church facility (250 capacity) on land that is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street (Baseline Road). 2. Compatibility with Neiqhborhood The church is an existing use. It is surrounded by single family uses on three sides with an office use located to the north. The existing facility is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parki The property contains an ingress and two egresses to Baseline Road. The property also contains 60 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers No landscape plan has been submitted. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that a church use on this property is compatible with the surrounding area. The staff does, however, have serious reservations about the proposal. The staff cannot support the location of the six proposed classrooms. The lack of setback (eight feet side yard and 25 feet rear yard as required in "R -2 ") and the proximity of the other building creates a potential safety problem. The applicant needs to investigate the possibility of relocating the classrooms on the west side of the property and providing the appropriate screening and landscaping on the south property line. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) There are a series of landscape and layout problems as shown. (2) Right -of -way dedication of 45 feet from the centerline of Baseline Road is required. (3) Stormwater detention is required - show preliminary volume calculation. (4) Redesign the driveway as shown by the Traffic Engineer. (5) Only one driveway is allowed - this can be accomplished by redesign. (6) Forty -five degree parking is required on the east side of the property in order to back a car out properly - wheel stops are required on the new parking area between the family life center and the church. 6. Staff Recommendtion Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes relocation of the six proposed classrooms, the appropriate screening and landscaping, and the City Engineering concerns; and (2) comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1 through 6 as listed above. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 17 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The issue was, not discussed. Additional comments are: (1) The Fire Department states that the proposed structures cannot be occupied as is; and (2) the Water Works states that on -site fire service is recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff reiterated its recommendation of approval provided the applicant agreed to meet staff recommendations. The Commission noted that the applicant had not attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and that no revised proposal had been submitted. The Commission instructed the applicant to contact the Fire Department immediately because of the expressed safety concerns. The applicant agreed to comply. The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent to defer the application until the November 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 NAME: Bethel Freewill Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit (Z -4740) LOCATION: The northeast corner of Chicot Road and the old Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad right -of -way (12611 Chicot Road) OWNER/APPLICANT: Bethel Freewill Baptist Church/ Rev. Don Brown PROPOSAL: To construct a new one -story auditorium addition (164 capacity /approximately 2,800 square feet) to an existing 2,050 square feet sanctuary (capacity 90) and to construct 52 paved parking spaces on 2.5 acres of land that is zoned "R -2." 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street ( Chicot Road) . 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is surrounded on three sides by vacant property with one single family use located to the north. The existing use (church) and the proposed expansion are compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin One access drive to Chicot Road will serve this property. A total of 52 paved parking spaces will be available upon completion of the expansion. 4. Screeninq and Buffers The site plan contains the proposed landscaping area. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 18 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the surrounding area. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan that includes the dimensions of the buildings, drives, etc. 6. City Engineering Comments (1) Forty -five feet right -of -way from the centerline of Chicot Road is required. (2) Stormwater detention location and volumes are required. (3) Twelve feet minimum drives around the church are also required. (4) A radius of 17 feet on the northwest corner drive is required. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) submit a revised site plan that includes dimensions of the drives, buildings and reflects the changes required by the City Engineer; and (2) comply with City Engineering comments numbered 1 through 4. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 NAME: West 65th Street Conditional Use Permit (Z -4744) LOCATION: The northeast corner of Butler Road and West 65th Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Wrape Family Charitable Trust/ Wingfield Martin PROPOSAL: To construct a one -story (5,000 square feet) automobile tire service center and 25 paved parking spaces on land that is zoned "C -3." 1. Site Location Adjacent to an arterial street on the south (West 65th Street) and a residential street located to the west (Butler Road). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is located in a mixed use area. It is abutted by multifamily to the north and south, by a church located to the east and a small commercial strip center located to the west. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The plan proposes two access points (one on Butler Road and one on West 65th Street) as well as 25 paved parking spaces. 4. Screening and Buffers The site plan includes landscape areas. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 19 - Continued 5. Analysis The staff feels that the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff does not have any reservations about this project. A replat has been submitted for this site. 6. City Engineering Comments Show the detention and preliminary volume calculations on the plat. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the applicant agreeing to comply with the City Engineering requests. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present and agreed to comply with staff recommendations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 NAME: Kanis Road Conditional Use Permit (Z -4745) LOCATION: The southeast corner of Kanis and Shackleford Road (10721 Kanis Road) OWNER/APPLICANT: Hurley /Whitwell Realty Company, Inc., /Stephen E. Whitwell PROPOSAL: To down zone the property from "0 -3" to "0 -2" and to obtain a conditional use permit which would allow the conversion of an approximate 2,000 square feet building to a restaurant on .55 acres. 1. Site Location The site is at the intersection of two major streets, in an area where office and commercial development is anticipated. A sit -down restaurant such as this, with no drive - through service, is appropriate for the area. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood To the north is an office building. Vacant tracts to the west and northwest are zoned commercial. Existing single family residential uses to the south and east are on land zoned for office use. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking Engineering has indicated that the layout as shown is not acceptable. A revised plan is being prepared. Sufficient parking spaces have been indicated, based on the ordinance requirements. 4. Screening and Buffers The revised plan is to provide the required 25 feet landscaped strip adjacent to Kanis and Shackleford Roads. Also, a 12 feet landscaped area and a six feet October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 - Continued opaque fence will buffer the adjacent residences located to the south. The trash receptacle will be at the rear of the building, screened from view on four sides. 5. Analysis The approach being used will permit a specific commercial use without rezoning to commercial. Rezoning could lead to strip commercial development to the east and south. Although the I -430 Plan calls for this site to be "major offices," a restaurant use is permitted by conditional use permit in the "0 -2" District. Since the proposed use is appropriate and appears compatible with the office and commercial zoning nearby, adverse impacts should not be a problem. Adequate provisions for parking and trash will be made, assuming that the technical requirements of the Traffic Engineer are met. While it is understood that there will be no dance floor, live entertainment or drive - through window, it would be helpful to spell this out in the conditions of the approval, so that in the future there will be no administrative doubt or adverse impact relating to such activities. 6. City Engineering Comments The layout as shown is not acceptable. Please contact the Traffic Engineer as soon as possible in order to get proper layout for the site. 7. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the revised plan meeting the approval of the Traffic Engineer and no drive - through, dance floor, or live entertainment being allowed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was not present. The staff said that a revised site plan had been received that met most requirements, but did not reflect the following City Traffic October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 - Continued Engineer requests. The Traffic Engineering comments are: (1) The driveways to be used by the project need to be rebuilt to conform and line up with the internal drives; (2) the west driveway along Kanis Road should be closed for traffic safety reasons. In addition, the spacing of driveways along an arterial street ( Kanis) should be 300 feet minimum. In order to facilitate internal flow, it may be better to allow a connector road on the north side of the building; and (3) request reducing the 12 feet buffer to 8 feet along the south property line to obtain a wider driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) The applicant was present. Mr. Craig Burns represented the Farm Bureau and opposed the proposed use. The applicant stated that he would submit a revised site plan that would meet the City Traffic Engineer's requirements. The Commission then voted 5 ayes, 1 no (Jones) and 5 absent to approve the application. The item was then automatically deferred until the November 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting due to the fact that 6 affirmative votes are necessary for approval. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. NAME: Texaco at Markham Site Plan Review /Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 9001 West Markham Street DEVELOPER /ENGINEER: Texaco USA P.O. Box 2420 Tulsa, OK 74102 Telephone: 918 560 -6000 A. Request 1. To allow a 3' building line setback on the west side. 2. Multiple building site plan review for construction of a car wash. B. Existing Conditions Site currently developed as a service station. C. Issue / Discussion /Legal /Technical /Design 1 Oorrect north arrow. 2. No building line waiver required on west side. 3. Show location of vaccum station. 4. Traffic Engineering response needed. D. Engineering Comments It is highly suggested that landscaping be accomplished in the area of the new construction around the new car wash. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made and the filing of a one lot replat. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 21 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant agreed to submit a revised site plan addressing staff's comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 NAME: Texaco at Old Forge LOCATION: 10100 Rodney Parham Road DEVELOPER /ENGINEER: Texaco USA P.O. Box 2420 Tulsa, OK 74102 Telephone: 918 560 -6000 A. Proposal /Request To encroach 25' into a 40' building setback area for construction of new pump islands. B. Existing Conditions The site is currently developed as a service station. C. Issues None. D. Engineering Comments None. E. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to one lot final replat. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The item was reviewed and passed to the Commission. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 22 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 23 - Other Matters - PPD Extension Request Name: Seventh and Valentine PUD Location: SW Corner, Seventh and Valentine Streets Name: Kimball and Bodeman's PUD Location: Lots 10 and 11, Block 7 Kimball and Bodeman's Addition Name: Sixth and Oak PUD Location: NE Corner, Sixth and Oak Applicant: Roy West #12 Regency Circle Little Rock, AR 565 -5639 or 821 -4253 STAFF REPORT: On March 15, 1983, the Planning Commission and City Board approved three small PUD's for multifamily use that had originated as a request to rezone from "R -4" to "R -5." The applicant is now asking for an extension of that approval for one year. Since this is the third extension that requires City Board review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 23 —Other Matters - PUD Extension Request PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 24 - Other Matters - Water Main Extensions _ Mains Extension Phase VI The Little Rock Water Works is requesting Planning Commission approval for the following water main extensions of 16 inches in diamater: 83rd Street, Rinke Road and Mabelvale Cutoff Road. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There were no issues to be resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Commission voted 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent to approve the application as recommended by the staff, reviewed by the Subdivision Committee and agreed to by the applicant. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 25 - Other Matters - Reconsideration Item NAME: Richardson Properties /Acreage Tract LOCATION: At the north end of Foxcroft Road adjacent to Overlook Subdivision and Robinwood Subdivision REQUEST: To be permitted to extend Foxcroft Road northward as a 40 -foot private street which will terminate in a cul -de -sac. The purpose of which is to provide for a public approved easement /right -of -way for frontage of acreage lots. STAFF REPORT: This issue comes to the Commission as the result of discussions between Mr. Richardson and Planning staff concerning access to this irregular tract of land. At the present time, this ownership exceeding 25 acres total has a street frontage of approximately 60 feet which is the termination of Foxcroft Road. Mr. Richardson proposes to place on record an instrument as required by the Commission in form and substance that will allow the use of this private roadway to access his property. Two or more large lots would be sold and developed. These lots would be in excess of five acres and a plat would not be required. The Engineering staff has reviewed the street proposal and has indicated "no problems." The Master Street Plan does not propose the extension of Foxcroft Road as a collector street. It currently is constructed as a collector 36 feet wide from Cantrell Road to this point. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 25 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff offers no comment at this time but will be prepared to address the issue and answer questions at the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9 -9 -86) The applicant, Mr. Robert J. Richardson, presented his request to the Commission and responded to several questions as to the reason for the extension and the format of the proposed land sale. The Planning staff offered a general overview of the proposal and a recommendation of approval of the extension of the street as proposed. The staff indicated it understood that the street would be a 40' private street approximately 150' to 200' in length terminating in a turnaround, perhaps a hammerhead. Several members of the Commission then raised issues associated with the filing, including the need for more information, uncertainty as to why a normal application for a five lot plat was not being filed, and the relationship of this filing to the current litigation. The Chairman then offered to hear comments from two adjacent property owners. These were Mrs. Schultz and Mrs. Puryear, residents of the Robinwood Subdivision adjacent to the west and south. Both of these interested parties indicated that they felt this proposal was premature and that in fact it might run cross purposes with the current litigation. They felt that the item should be held in abeyance until the court opinion is handed down and that it not be pursued until it is determined whether Mr. Richardson will pursue an appeal of the decision. Commissioner Nicholson offered the thought that she understood the City Attorney's direction to the Commission was that in these kinds of circumstances that no further action be taken by the Commission until current litigation is resolved. The City Attorney's representative, Mr. Steven Giles, responded by stating that he thought that action on the application should be deferred until the written opinion is issued by the Judge handling the litigation. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 25 - Continued Further lengthy discussion of motion was made to defer this of litigation as suggested by The motion passed by a vote of the proposal followed. A request until the issue is out the City Attorney's staff. 8 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: (10 -2 -86) The staff reported to the Committee that Steve Giles of the City Attorney's Office has discussed this case with the applicant's attorney, Mr. David Henry, and has decided to change his position on this matter. He has reported to Planning staff that he does not now feel that the Planning Commission should hold up review of Mr. Richardson's request; therefore, the request has been placed on the agenda, a cover letter has been submitted outlining the issue and a generalized lot scheme has been filed. The only recommendation that staff would offer at this time is that more work could be done on the actual house site location so as to possibly eliminate the unusual configurations of these lots. As before, staff will be prepared to address issues as they develop at the hearing and respond to questions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10- 14 -86) The applicant was present as was his attorney, Mr. David Henry. There were objectors in attendance being Mr. Don Hamilton and Mrs. Marilyn Schultz. The Planning staff offered history and a recommendation on the proposal. The staff suggested that the Commission approve the extension of this private roadway as proposed by Mr. Richardson with a restriction that the total number of lots be limited to four, that the City street standards be applied to the private street and that the lot lying across the access road be redesigned. A brief discussion of the proposal then followed during which time Mr. David Jones of the Planning Commission requested of the staff information as to the access provision to 40+ acres lying north and west of the subject properties. He suggested that Mr. Richardson's proposal may, in fact, preclude future development and October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 25 - Continued access to the site. The staff offered comments that access to that area had been dealt with at such time as the Master Street Plan was amended to eliminate Foxcroft Road extension northward to the river. It was further pointed out by staff that several access points by way of stub streets exist both from the Robinwood Subdivision and from the River Ridge Manor Subdivision area. The Chairman then asked the applicant to present his request. David Henry, attorney for Mr. Richardson, addressed the several comments that had been made. He stated that this was not a plat filing but was simply presentation of an idea as to how the lots might be configured in response to a request of the Planning Commission. He further stated the only request at this time by his client was for extension of a private street so as to provide sufficient frontage to sell off 5+ acre lots as permitted by the ordinance. He further stated that the access to other lands north and west of this area he did not consider to be an issue at this time. The Chairman then asked for comments of the objectors. Mr. Don Hamilton, a resident of Robinwood, offered comments concerning the appropriateness of this hearing when litigation is being pursued in the form of an appeal of the previou.s subdivision matter involving Parcel 1 of this ownership. He further voiced Robinwood owners' objections to the development of lots as presented and the access arrangement provided. He stated they were concerned that actions of this nature should be held in abeyance pending resolution of the court appeal especially in light of the many unanswered questions and undocumented access to additional properties in the area. He questioned the future development impacts on this area by allowing this type of development. The City Attorney representative, Pat Benton, then responded to Mr. Hamilton's comments, and reported that an appeal had been filed. A general discussion of the matter then followed involving additional objectors. Marilyn Schultz, a resident of Robinwood, spoke to the issue. A motion was requested by the Chairman. The motion was made that Mr. Richardson's request be approved as presented. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, 5 absent. The failure of this motion falls within the guidelines of the Planning Commission bylaws requiring automatic deferral for 30 days inasmuch as six votes for final action were not obtained. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2b - Plan Amendment The detailed plans for the Park System Master Plan of 1983 have been used as a guide to coordinate growth of the Municipal Park System. The Park System Master Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors, Ordinance No. 14,517 of 1983. This plan has been recently reviewed to exclude the Neighborhood Park 7A located at the St. John Seminary in the Heights /Hillcrest planning area. The request for the plan change originated from the St. John Seminary. The Seminary would like to clear the record to aid in their future expansion plans. It appears that the City is not in a position at this time to purchase the property at the asking price. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the plan change as filed, due to current financial limitations. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 27 - Plan Amendment The detailed plans for the Park System Master Plan of 1983 have been used as a guide to coordinate growth of the Municipal Park System. The Park System Master Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors, Ordinance No. 14,517 of 1983. This plan has been recently reviewed to exclude the Neighborhood Park 7A located at the St. John Seminary in the Heights /Hillcrest planning area. The request for the plan change originated from the St. John Seminary. The Seminary would like to clear the record to aid in their future expansion plans. It appears that the City is not in a position at this time to purchase the property at the asking price. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the plan change as filed, due to current financial limitations. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Having no objectors present, this item was placed on the consent agenda for approval. The consent agenda was approved with 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 28 NAME: Jenkins Building Line Waiver LOCATION: 1608 South Grant Street APPLICANT: Theodore Jenkins A. Staff Report The applicant is requesting to encroach 18 feet into an area established by a 30 -foot building line. He is asking for the waiver so that he may construct a carport. A petition signed by five neighbors and stating that they have no objections has been submitted. His reasons for requesting the waiver are due to the location of the site in the floodplain which prevents him from putting the carport on the northeast side of his property and the health of his wife. Mr. Jenkins has explained that his wife has suffered from polio since childhood and has recently been diagnosed as having Lupus, and she also has a heart murmur. Both of the first diseases mentioned are effected by weather conditions; so she needs some protection before it gets colder since she has to transport two children to school daily. He feels that a carport would help her health problems tremendously. Staff investigated the site. It is located in a single family area. No adverse comments are expected. B. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to utility approvals and filing of a one lot replat. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval, subject to utility comments and filing of a one -lot replat was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ·ZONING ·SUBDIVISION MEMBER A B I z._, W.Riddick, III " / l J.Schlereth • • ✓ ,/ R.Massie t1 Fl B.Sipes •• / ,/ J.Nicholson •,✓,/ w.Rector •• ./ / W.Ketcher •, ,/ ,// D.Arnett •# ✓ / D.J. Jones /J,, I.Boles -• ✓ / F.Perkins yJ 3 ,/ v ,/' / ✓ /: ✓ ITEM NUMBERS t.f 5 l.P '7 g q ✓ ✓ ✓ / ✓ / ,/ / J/ ✓ / / ✓/ / ✓✓ / ,/ / / � y v ✓✓ / ,/ / ✓ ,/ / // ✓ ✓ ✓ A If ,/ Jj / ,, � -/ ✓ / ✓✓ ✓AYE Q'j NAYE A ABSENT -':e_ABSTAIN 10 II ll. ✓ • / ✓ ti v / JI v / -v/ -,/ ✓ , / ,,, v JI ✓� ✓ /.3 J <I-L 5 l ){,. /'l ,n1 I /q ZlJ /7 ,/ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ / / � rr ✓/ v / ✓ / � ✓ A .J/ ✓ ✓ I)-.✓ / Jt ✓/ ✓✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ '✓ v ✓ / ✓ � / A ✓. v ✓ A ✓✓ /) �: if tr A ✓ II fl • /. v-✓ v-✓ ✓/y ✓ TT DATE (j�/, fl}. l1Bfo ZONING PLANNING ·c OM MISSION V O T E R E C O R D ITEM NUMBERS SUBDIVISION MEMBER ;}_,/ .JJL.:231.:¥ l.:lli �G,6?'7 bii' I I I � W.Riddick, III /} A II J.Schlereth v �. // ✓ R.Massie f!. , A #J B.Sipes V ✓ ✓ v' ✓ J.Nicholson / ✓ // ✓ w.Rector 1,/ / /V / W.Ketcher // f" / V V D.Arnett ti ✓ ✓ IJ/ ✓ D.J. Jones IJ /1' /}ft A I.Boles , // y' ✓ ✓-✓ F.Perkins ,� -/1. ✓AYE � NAYE A ADSENT �ABSTAIN October 14, 1986 There being no further business discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date